Hi Lex and all!

Just wanted to mention that I and Stephan have moved our exchange off
list and that the status is as follows:

- We have agreed on some common ground in our models.
- We are focused on trying both our models, either in parallell or
merged somhow.

Just so you know.

Now, some remarks:

lex at cc.gatech.edu wrote:
[SNIP]
> One aspect of baking in dependencies into version numbers is that people
> may well end up not wanting to use the dependency-accurate version
> numbers as their normal version numbers.  If am working on Chuck II Son
> of Chuck(y), then I just want version numbers that go 2.0, 2.1, 2.2,
> etc., but those will not capture the dependency information accurately. 
> This makes me wary of capturing *accurate* dependency information in the
> versions, though it may still be that the *intent* of the dependencies
> can still be encoded in them.

Yes, our current "agreement" on this is to encode it in a separate field
called "compatibility code".
And it will not be entered as a number, Stephan has boiled it down to a
series of yes/no questions.

We are also refining it so that *I* also am satisfied with it - this
means both our approached will be able to use it.
 
> Along these lines, note that a conflict can be detected after the
> version number has already been decided.  What happens in that case?  If
> the version number only captures intent then there is no problem.  If it
> is supposed to be accurate, then that seems impossible.

Yes, but as I said - we put it in a separate field. You still have the
manual version field and the automatic version number too.

regards, Göran

PS. Lex, I will look into your postings etc too. Just need time. I have
also exchanged some emails with Julian offlist discussing the "multi
server issues". I am still thinking. I have revised my plans for that a
bit (and note that for me *that* stuff has been moved into the future
*after* dependencies) but haven't decided anything yet.