Version number in the output header?

[tueda]

Just a small thing. I thought I imitated the version number of Jos's setup in the FORM output header, like

FORM 4.2 (Jul  6 2017, v4.2.0) 64-bits

where the 4.2 is constructed from the major version and minor version, but actually I got

FORM 4.2.0 (Jul  6 2017, v4.2.0) 64-bits         Run: Thu Jul  6 18:10:17 2017

(i.e., with an extra .0). It would be OK (except for some software that uses the printed version), but then a question arises: which will be preferred for the next version 4.2.1 in future:

FORM 4.2 (XX-XX-20XX, v4.2.1) 64-bits

or

FORM 4.2.1 (XX-XX-20XX, v4.2.1) 64-bits

?

[vermaseren]

Hi Takahiro, I would take the first version to minimize the amount of double information. Jos

…

On 6 jul. 2017, at 18:13, Takahiro Ueda ***@***.***> wrote: Just a small thing. I thought I imitated the version number of Jos's setup in the FORM output header, like FORM 4.2 (Jul 6 2017, v4.2.0) 64-bits where the 4.2 is constructed from the major version and minor version, but actually I got FORM 4.2.0 (Jul 6 2017, v4.2.0) 64-bits Run: Thu Jul 6 18:10:17 2017 (i.e., with an extra 0). It would be OK (except for some software that uses the printed version), but then a question arises: which will be preferred for the next version 4.2.1 in future: FORM 4.2 (XX-XX-20XX, v4.2.1) 64-bits or FORM 4.2.1 (XX-XX-20XX, v4.2.1) 64-bits ? — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#213>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AFLxEtAqWmvKWf3fT4l6AYKazM8ec8Nbks5sLQeRgaJpZM4OP3HO>.

[tueda]

Hi Jos,

Yes, I also like FORM 4.2 (XX-XX-20XX, v4.2.1) 64-bits.

"4.2" is the version that users can access by VERSION_ and SUBVERSION_, while v4.2.1 is a bit internal one. Another option would be to make SUBSUBVERSION_, but if our versioning is sane, 4.2.1 would contain only bug fixes and no new features.