Re: Can we make the *-version functions more consistent?

[Marius Vollmer]

Rob Browning <address@hidden> writes:

> Now that we're switching to a fixed "three number" versioning scheme,
> could we change it so that we have:
> 
>   (major-version) => "1"
>   (minor-version) => "6"
>   (revision)      => "0"

Agreed.  (I'm more with `micro-version' than `revision', but that's a
micro point.)

What about adding a _forth_ version indicator, `patch-level'.  The
*-versions could be guaranteed to be numbers, and `patch-level' could
be any string.  People would use the patch-level for locally modified
versions of Guile and it would normally be empty.