Re: (release) versioning

[Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>]

On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 04:54:01PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> All,
> 
> on the hackathon we also discussed possibly changing the versioning
> of Xen. The main rationale for the proposal is that (just like in many
> other software projects) version numbers (in particular the major
> one) currently don't really convey much information. The proposal is
> to take gcc's new versioning scheme as a basis (i.e. I'm not going to
> claim that the below is an exact copy of theirs): Major releases
> always increment the major version number. Minor version 0 is
> reserved to the development cycle, i.e. the first release in any
> release series would be 5.1.0. RCs would be expressed through the
> 3rd digit, i.e. the first RC of the currently being worked on release
> would be 5.0.1 (there was some debate as to whether, despite
> being redundant, to attach -rc1 to it to make clear this is not an
> actual release).
> 
> So comparing current and new schemes things would go
> 
> 	OLD			NEW
> 	4.6-unstable		5.0-unstable (or 5.0.0)
> 	4.6.0-rc1			5.0.1 (-rc1)
> 	...			...
> 	4.6.0-rcN			5.0.N (-rcN)
> 	4.6.0			5.1.0
> 	4.6.1-rc1			5.1.1 (-rc1)
> 	...			...
> 	4.6.1			5.2.0
> 
> This additionally has the benefit that taking only the numeric
> part of the version string then would sort properly.
> 
> Any comments or alternative proposals are welcome.

I am OK with the mechanism as is and not sure why it would need
changing. I know you are saying that the existing mechanism
does not convery much information but I think the 'rcX'appended
to the version tag is enough to tell us when there is an RC and
when there is a new release.


> 
> Regards, Jan
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
> http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel