From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:48245) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fEF25-0000Jf-NC for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 03 May 2018 10:16:39 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fEF20-0006lq-P7 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 03 May 2018 10:16:29 -0400 Received: from mx3-rdu2.redhat.com ([66.187.233.73]:38704 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 1fEF20-0006kw-IU for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 03 May 2018 10:16:24 -0400 Date: Thu, 3 May 2018 16:16:14 +0200 From: Cornelia Huck Message-ID: <20180503161614.1a963491.cohuck@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: 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-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 , "Daniel P. =?UTF-8?B?QmVycmFuZ8Op?=" , Stefan Hajnoczi , QEMU Developers On Thu, 3 May 2018 16:06:19 +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: =20 > >> On 3 May 2018 at 10:07, Daniel P. Berrang=C3=A9 = wrote: =20 > >>> On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 08:21:00AM +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: =20 > >>>> I don't see an issue with time-based numbering schemes. Ubuntu made= it > >>>> popular and other projects (like DPDK) are doing the same thing now. > >>>> > >>>> The convention is YY.MM though, not YYMM. =20 > >>> > >>> It feels like we've got quite a strong backing for time based version= ing > >>> amongst people replying here. I'd be happy with YY.MM =20 > >> > >> 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 > >=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 style). > >=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 styl= e)? > >=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 >=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... Just use YYYY instead of YY :)