* Re: git version numbers
2011-05-30 3:34 ` Jeff King
@ 2011-05-30 6:06 ` Tim Mazid
2011-05-30 14:25 ` Jeff King
2011-05-30 14:40 ` Jakub Narebski
1 sibling, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Tim Mazid @ 2011-05-30 6:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff King; +Cc: Git Mailing List
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2388 bytes --]
On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 11:34:28PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> In "git w.x.y.z", the decoding is:
>
> w: not likely to change short of a complete rewrite or something that
> is quite incompatible (i.e., will probably remain "1" for quite a
> while)
>
> x: when this jumps, it is a "big" version change, meaning there may be
> some minor incompatibilities or new ways of doing things. For
> example, 1.5.0 introduced a lot of usability changes and the
> separate-remotes layout became the default. In 1.6.0, we stopped
> shipping "git-*" in the PATH, and started using some new packfile
> features by default. And so on. If you want to know more, see
> Documentation/RelNotes/1.?.0.txt.
>
> y: when this jumps, it is a new release cut from master that does not
> have any "big" changes as above. There will be new features and
> some bugfixes. See RelNotes/1.7.?.txt for examples of what gets
> included.
>
> z: when this jumps, it is a bugfix release based on the feature
> release w.x.y. See RelNotes/1.7.5.?.txt for examples.
>
> Getting more to your actual question, I don't know that we ever use any
> particular name like "major" or "minor" for any of them. We do tend to
> use the terms "feature release" for w.x.y releases and "bugfix release"
> for w.x.y.z.
Ah; I see. The system I was considering was essentially identical,
except instead of calling it w.x.y.z, they are actually named them in
the form of <super-major>.<major>.<minor>-<optional revision>. As for
the decoding, it's identical: super-major is an almost never change
number; major is when there's something "big"; minor is when there's a
"release", but it's not "big"; and revision for a bugfix.
Well, thanks for the clarification.
While we're on the topic, though, when I was scouring the web for
information, I found a post [1] which spoke against the traditional
numbering versioning system. Personally, I disagree and find the
"dating" version cumbersome and uninformative. So, I was wondering what
your [2] take on this is.
Tim.
[1] http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2007/02/whats-in-a-version-number-anyway.html
[2] By "you", I mean anybody in the list, of course.
--
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments
[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: git version numbers
2011-05-30 3:34 ` Jeff King
2011-05-30 6:06 ` Tim Mazid
@ 2011-05-30 14:40 ` Jakub Narebski
1 sibling, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Jakub Narebski @ 2011-05-30 14:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff King; +Cc: Tim Mazid, Git Mailing List
Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
> On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 06:13:22AM +1000, Tim Mazid wrote:
>
> > I was just looking at various versioning schemes, and I came to wonder
> > about git's one. Most of the ones out there are of the form
> > <major>.<minor>.<optional revision> (j.n.r), but git seems to have four,
> > as in 1.7.5.1.
> >
> > So, I was wondering what you call each number in the git version; does
> > the usual j.n.r apply to the last three and the first one is a
> > "mystery"? What is the official versioning scheme? Does each number
> > have any particular name?
>
> In "git w.x.y.z", the decoding is:
>
> w: not likely to change short of a complete rewrite or something that
> is quite incompatible (i.e., will probably remain "1" for quite a
> while)
>
> x: when this jumps, it is a "big" version change, meaning there may be
> some minor incompatibilities or new ways of doing things. For
> example, 1.5.0 introduced a lot of usability changes and the
> separate-remotes layout became the default. In 1.6.0, we stopped
> shipping "git-*" in the PATH, and started using some new packfile
> features by default. And so on. If you want to know more, see
> Documentation/RelNotes/1.?.0.txt.
>
> y: when this jumps, it is a new release cut from master that does not
> have any "big" changes as above. There will be new features and
> some bugfixes. See RelNotes/1.7.?.txt for examples of what gets
> included.
>
> z: when this jumps, it is a bugfix release based on the feature
> release w.x.y. See RelNotes/1.7.5.?.txt for examples.
>
> Getting more to your actual question, I don't know that we ever use any
> particular name like "major" or "minor" for any of them. We do tend to
> use the terms "feature release" for w.x.y releases and "bugfix release"
> for w.x.y.z.
I think that Git numbering scheme actually follows semver pattern used
by Linux kernel... which just moved to scheme: x.y[.z] from w.x.y[.z]
one
https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/5/29/204 == http://lwn.net/Articles/445222/
http://lwn.net/Articles/445223/
Though git still breaks backward compatibility from time to time
(separate remotes by default, not shipping git-xxx n PATH,
deltabaseoffset, submodules, packed refs, push safeties, status !=
commit --dry-run) which change 'x'... though probably could change 'w'
(thought we be then at 7.x with git codebase still in flux...).
--
Jakub Narebski
Poland
ShadeHawk on #git
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread