From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:48243) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fEF25-0000Je-KG for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 03 May 2018 10:16:34 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fEF21-0006mU-MJ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 03 May 2018 10:16:29 -0400 Received: from mx3-rdu2.redhat.com ([66.187.233.73]:46388 helo=mx1.redhat.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fEF21-0006kv-Dv for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 03 May 2018 10:16:25 -0400 Date: Thu, 3 May 2018 15:16:10 +0100 From: Daniel =?utf-8?B?UC4gQmVycmFuZ8Op?= Message-ID: <20180503141610.GC11382@redhat.com> Reply-To: Daniel =?utf-8?B?UC4gQmVycmFuZ8Op?= References: <20180430103312.GH3249@redhat.com> <20180430132107.0a37704d.cohuck@redhat.com> <20180502074403.yh5weukbjgqsvp7n@sirius.home.kraxel.org> <20180502080200.GG3308@redhat.com> <20180503072100.GA5301@stefanha-x1.localdomain> <20180503090727.GC11382@redhat.com> <20180503134321.pp736ou25pdwvslm@sirius.home.kraxel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] release retrospective, next release timing, numbering List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Thomas Huth Cc: Gerd Hoffmann , Peter Maydell , Cornelia Huck , Stefan Hajnoczi , QEMU Developers On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 04:06:19PM +0200, Thomas Huth wrote: > On 03.05.2018 15:43, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > > On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 10:26:40AM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote: > >> On 3 May 2018 at 10:07, Daniel P. Berrang=C3=A9 wrote: > >>> On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 08:21:00AM +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > >>>> I don't see an issue with time-based numbering schemes. Ubuntu ma= de it > >>>> popular and other projects (like DPDK) are doing the same thing no= w. > >>>> > >>>> The convention is YY.MM though, not YYMM. > >>> > >>> It feels like we've got quite a strong backing for time based versi= oning > >>> amongst people replying here. I'd be happy with YY.MM > >> > >> I'm not hugely in favour mostly because I don't much like > >> changing version numbering formats -- does it really gain > >> us anything? But I guess it's a bit of a bikeshed-colour question. > >=20 > > Well, major/minor numbers don't mean anything. So I think it makes > > sense to give them a meaning, and given we do time-based releases it > > surely makes sense to use a time-based scheme. Major indicating the > > year is the obvious and common choice here. Various variants are in > > use: > >=20 > > (a) major equals year, minor equals month (ubuntu style). > > (b) major equals year, minor counts up (mesa style). > > (c) major is bumped each year, but doesn't equal year (libvirt styl= e). > >=20 > > If we don't want give them a meaning, how about: > >=20 > > (d) just drop the minor and count up major each release (systemd st= yle)? > >=20 > > My personal preference would be (a) or (b), because it is easy to see > > when a version was released. (b) looks more like a classic version > > number, we would have 18.0, 18.1, ... instead of 18.04, 18.08, ... >=20 > I'd really would like to avoid variant (a) ... otherwise people will > confuse 18.1.1 and 18.11 (aka. 18.11.0) again... We could keep major =3D=3D year, minor =3D=3D nth release of $year. eg 18= .1, 18.2, 18.3 for the 1st, 2nd and 3rd releases of 2018. Still makes it fairly clear what timeframe each was released in, without having to follow month numbers. Regards, Daniel --=20 |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberran= ge :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.c= om :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberran= ge :|