From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:48858) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fFglr-0003IE-9v for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 07 May 2018 10:05:44 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fFgln-0006BZ-Bc for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 07 May 2018 10:05:43 -0400 Received: from mx3-rdu2.redhat.com ([66.187.233.73]:60216 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 1fFgln-0006Ao-8L for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 07 May 2018 10:05:39 -0400 Date: Mon, 7 May 2018 16:05:27 +0200 From: Kevin Wolf Message-ID: <20180507140527.GA4716@localhost.localdomain> References: <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> <20180504132023.GA5098@localhost.localdomain> <69fd5755-d1f0-b69a-fabb-3134fccaa4a5@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <69fd5755-d1f0-b69a-fabb-3134fccaa4a5@redhat.com> 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: Richard Henderson , Gerd Hoffmann , Peter Maydell , Cornelia Huck , QEMU Developers , Stefan Hajnoczi Am 07.05.2018 um 07:33 hat Thomas Huth geschrieben: > On 04.05.2018 19:30, Richard Henderson wrote: > > On 05/04/2018 06:20 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote: > >> I'm not sure what the exact systemd model is, but as we came to the > >> conclusion that there is no semantic difference between major and minor > >> version number for QEMU, I'd just merge them. > >> > >> This would result in 3.0 for the next release, 3.1 etc. would be stable > >> releases, and the December release would be 4.0. > >> > >> It feels like the minimal change to fix our existing versioning scheme. > > > > This is very similar to what GCC started to use at version 5. > > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/develop.html#num_scheme > > > > I do think it makes sense to drop minor versions, leaving only major + > > patchlevel (which then appears to be minor version). > > We're currently also using the patch level for marking developing > version (x.y.50) and release candidates (x.y.9r) ... we should also > think of a way how we want to map that to a new numbering scheme. If we > do it the GCC way, I guess the x.0 release will be the development > "versions"? But the release candidates? Do we still need a third number > for doing those (3.0.1 = rc1, 3.0.2 = rc2, ...)? Nothing stops you from using 3.50, 3.91, etc. like we always did. Kevin