Richard Staehli <rastaehli at mac.com> wrote:
[SNIP]
> > The simple idea that I am working towards in SM2 and beyond is that 
> > each
> > release should be mandatorily classified in terms of "backwards
> > compatibility". Exactly which levels there should be is of course up 
> > for
> > discussion, here are enough to show the idea:
> > <description of thousands of subtly different levels>

:-) It was to prove the point. And I think it still would be easy for
the maintainer to pick the right one.

> I think the most important compatibility classifications are
> - bit-identical
> - backward-compatible extensions
> - bug fixes that are unlikely to break compatibility (but may fix it)
> - changes to interface and semantics that break compatibility

Indeed. As I said, the levels are up for discussion. And we will not
hardcode anything, I am simply using categories just like in SM1.x.
 
> I would be happy with a two-number version system: one for semantic 
> version and a second for fix/extension level, lumping extensions in 
> with bug fixes.  I think this system is widely understood and would be 
> a significant step forward for Squeak packages.

In SM2 we have auto-version (using package VersionNumber from Stephen)
and the "manual" version which is just a String. People have very strong
and different ideas on numbering versions. :)

So I still think this classification should be separate from the version
numbers.
 
> Richard

regards, Göran