From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jerry Van Baren Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 10:55:34 -0400 Subject: [U-Boot-Users] Release numbering (was Merge Window Closed.) In-Reply-To: <20070827185457.C08DA24047@gemini.denx.de> References: <20070827185457.C08DA24047@gemini.denx.de> Message-ID: <46D588E6.3020209@smiths-aerospace.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Wolfgang Denk wrote: > In message <46D2FEB0.6090900@googlemail.com> you wrote: >> What's about a u-boot-1.3.0-rc1 tag in git and a >> u-boot-1.3.0-rc1.tar.bz2 on ftp server? > > Will do that. But I want to integrate the first round of feedback > first. There are way too many show-stopper bugs in the current code > to call it a release candidate. If I just had a little more time... > > Best regards, > > Wolfgang Denk What about adopting Ubuntu's philosophy and numbering by year and month Y.M? This has the disadvantage of not clearly marking major changes (discontinuities) e.g. 1.x -> 2.0 or 1.2.y -> 1.3.0. Assuming there are no earth-shattering discontinuities in the future, that isn't a problem. I'm not sure we are "there" yet, but u-boot has been around and refined for quite some time now and the changes have become a lot more incremental (or maybe I've just become more comfortable with it?). On the "advantages" side... 1) It acknowledges that u-boot (as with most open source projects) is subject to continuous rolling improvement. 2) It eliminates the debate of whether the major or just the minor number needs to be rolled. 3) When someone says "my build based on version 7.8 is broken" we can scale our scorn based on how old the release is without having to look it up. ;-) 4) This is also in line with Linus's current philosophy that the kernel will be 2.6.xxxxxx forever. (I suspect this won't hold literally true forever, I predict the "2.6" prefix will eventually be dropped.) Going to date-based numbering makes a lot of sense to me. Best regards, gvb