Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 15 Jul 2008 07:31:01 +0200 | From | Willy Tarreau <> | Subject | Re: From 2.4 to 2.6 to 2.7? |
| |
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 08:55:59PM -0700, david@lang.hm wrote: > On Mon, 14 Jul 2008, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > >>Does it have to be even numbers only? > > > >No. But the even/odd thing is still so fresh in peoples memory (despite us > >not having used it for years), and I think some projects aped us on it, so > >if I didn't change the numbering setup, but just wanted to reset the minor > >number, I'd probably jump from 2.6 to 2.8 just for historical reasons. > > > >But I could also see the second number as being the "year", and 2008 would > >get 2.8, and then next year I'd make the first release of 2009 be 2.9.1 > >(and probably avoid the ".0" just because it again has the connotations of > >a "big new untested release", which is not true in a date-based numbering > >scheme). And then 2010 would be 3.0.1 etc.. > > Ok, I'll jump in. > > I don't have strong feelings either, but I do have comments > > 1. for the historical reasons you allude to above going to a completely > different numbering system would be a nice thing > > 2. I do like involving the year, but I think 2008/2009/2010 are much > clearer then 2.8/2.9/3.0 let people shorten it verbally, but still realize > that it's a full year being referred to. > > 3. avoid using the month of the release (which ubuntu does), first you > aren't going to predict the month of relese ahead of time (so what will > the -rc's be called, the year is fairly clear and it's not _that_ bad if > 2008.4 happens to come out in Jan 2009). also too many people don't > understand that 8.10 is between 8.9 and 8.11, not between 8.0 and 8.2
That's probably why openbsd jumps from 3.9 to 4.0. I like such a numbering too. It compacts 3 numbers into 2 (like we had before) but without any major/minor notion. You just bump each new version by 0.1 at a somewhat regular rate. Having the year and a sub-version is fine too, but I think it adds unnecessary digits. Or maybe jump to 8.X for 2008, then 9.X in 2009 and 10.X in 2010 ? That way, we have both the date and the simplicity. And it's not like we really care about version 1000 in year 3000.
> so my prefrence (mild as it is) goes to YYYY.r.s (r=release, s=stable)
agreed, but with Y.r.s :-)
Willy
| |