[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Cif dictionary version numbers

• Subject: Re: Cif dictionary version numbers
• From: Matthew Towler <towler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
• Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 09:19:14 +0100
• In-Reply-To: <20050720080002.GA586@emerald.iucr.org>
• References: <42DD21E2.5070908@ccdc.cam.ac.uk><20050720080002.GA586@emerald.iucr.org>

I agree that three level numbering is useful

> So I would favour leaving the version labelling as now, but changing the
> type of _dictionary_version in any new DDL1 release that results from this
> and other of the recent bug reports.

The only problem with this is that it completely rules out any future 
parsing of version numbers.  Reading three numbers would be plausible, 
but not once free form text such as 'beta' starts being added; and once 
it is a free form text field there is no telling what form of words will 
be used.
The alternative I would prefer would be simply to drop the second point e.g.

1.0.1 -> 1.01
2.3.1 -> 2.31

This still means we get three level numbering, but can also treat the 
values as numbers.  The only restriction is that we can only have nine 
minor (0.1) revisions.
I think that text such as 'beta' can and should be included in the 
_dictionary_name.  There it is more likely to be obvious to users than 
in the version field.

Matt

_______________________________________________
cif-developers mailing list
cif-developers@iucr.org
http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/cif-developers

Reply to: [list | sender only]

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Cif dictionary version numbers (Dale Tronrud)

• References:
  • Cif dictionary version numbers (Matthew Towler)
  • Re: Cif dictionary version numbers (Brian McMahon)

• Prev by Date: Re: Cif dictionary version numbers
• Next by Date: Re: Cif dictionary version numbers
• Prev by thread: Re: Cif dictionary version numbers
• Next by thread: Re: Cif dictionary version numbers
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread