From: Andrew Eikum <aeikum@codeweavers.com>
To: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Cc: Andrew Eikum <aeikum@codeweavers.com>, git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: What's cooking in git.git (Feb 2014, #04; Wed, 12)
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 14:50:38 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140214205038.GC743@foghorn.codeweavers.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <xmqq4n41ihgi.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 12:10:05PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Andrew Eikum <aeikum@codeweavers.com> writes:
>
> > On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 01:59:41PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> >> As a workaround to make life easier for third-party tools, the
> >> upcoming major release will be called "Git 1.9.0" (not "Git 1.9").
> >> The first maintenance release for it will be "Git 1.9.1", and the
> >> major release after "Git 1.9.0" will either be "Git 2.0.0" or "Git
> >> 1.10.0".
> >>
> >
> > Apologies if this ground has been tread before, but has there been a
> > version numbering discussion? A quick google didn't seem to turn
> > anything up.
> >
> > This seems to be an opportune time to drop the useless first digit.
> > Explicitly, the major release numbers would be: 1.8, 1.9, then 2.0,
> > 3.0, 4.0, etc, with the 2nd digit would take the meaning of the
> > current 3rd digit and so on.
>
> Considered, and discarded.
>
> cf. http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/241498
>
Thank you for the link, it hadn't turned up in my searching.
> When you see a version number vX.Y.0 next time, think of it as just
> play vX.Y without the third digit, and you will be fine. People's
> script cannot learn the "think of it as ..." part overnight, and
> that is why we have the .0 there.
Sorry if I wasn't clear, I meant the useless digit is the first one,
which is currently "1." and has been hanging around for a bit over
eight years.
My worry is having "2." hang around for another decade or longer. I'd
rather see X.0.0 denote a major feature release (currently represented
as 1.X.0), with X.Y.0 for minor enhancements and X.Y.Z for bugfix. So
the major release version sequence would become 1.8.0, 1.9.0, 2.0.0,
3.0.0, with minor releases like 2.1.0, and bugfix releases like 2.1.1.
It seems reasonable to expect fewer backwards incompatible changes in
the future as Git has become more mature. This reduces the utility of
reserving X.0.0 for major backwards incompatible changes, especially
considering it's already been eight years for the first increment.
Andrew
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-02-14 20:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-02-12 21:59 What's cooking in git.git (Feb 2014, #04; Wed, 12) Junio C Hamano
2014-02-14 19:31 ` brian m. carlson
2014-02-14 19:47 ` Junio C Hamano
2014-02-14 19:44 ` Andrew Eikum
2014-02-14 20:10 ` Junio C Hamano
2014-02-14 20:50 ` Andrew Eikum [this message]
2014-02-14 21:08 ` Junio C Hamano
2014-02-14 21:28 ` Andrew Eikum
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20140214205038.GC743@foghorn.codeweavers.com \
--to=aeikum@codeweavers.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).