From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Vrabel Subject: Re: (release) versioning Date: Wed, 6 May 2015 11:57:54 +0100 Message-ID: <5549F3B2.9030007@citrix.com> References: <554903B90200007800076CFC@mail.emea.novell.com> <20150506072127.GB23664@zion.uk.xensource.com> <5549DDEC0200007800076F3F@mail.emea.novell.com> <5549EEE4.10702@citrix.com> <554A0E850200007800077104@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 1Ypx1c-0001Ay-Gd for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Wed, 06 May 2015 10:58:00 +0000 In-Reply-To: <554A0E850200007800077104@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 , David Vrabel Cc: xen-devel , Wei Liu List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 06/05/15 11:52, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 06.05.15 at 12:37, wrote: >> On 06/05/15 08:25, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>>> On 06.05.15 at 09:21, wrote: >>>> One exceptional situation is that we had 4.1.6 and 4.1.6.1. I don't >>>> expect that to happen very often, but we do make mistakes in the release >>>> process and figure out we need to release a slightly updated version. >>>> How does this fit into the proposed scheme? >>> >>> I think we would just attach a .1 to the previous version the same >>> way we did there, i.e. 5.2.0.1. >> >> What happens if this minor fixup itself needs a micro fixup? Do we then >> have 5.2.0.1.1? etc. etc. > > No, that would (naturally I would say) become 5.2.0.2. > >> Why not always bump the minor version regardless of how small the change >> was? > > That's certainly an option, but we chose the other route on the one > occasion when we needed it. Fair enough, I don't really mind. David