From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Cooper Subject: Re: (release) versioning Date: Tue, 5 May 2015 18:05:12 +0100 Message-ID: <5548F848.2010701@citrix.com> References: <554903B90200007800076CFC@mail.emea.novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail6.bemta14.messagelabs.com ([193.109.254.103]) by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1YpghE-000440-PP for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Tue, 05 May 2015 17:31:52 +0000 In-Reply-To: <554903B90200007800076CFC@mail.emea.novell.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Jan Beulich , xen-devel List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 05/05/15 16:54, 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. +1 (relayed from the hackathon) ~Andrew