From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:45381) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fEEsM-0005Vz-Sp for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 03 May 2018 10:06:27 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fEEsJ-00020Y-HC for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 03 May 2018 10:06:26 -0400 Received: from mx3-rdu2.redhat.com ([66.187.233.73]:55482 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 1fEEsJ-000202-B1 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 03 May 2018 10:06:23 -0400 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> From: Thomas Huth Message-ID: Date: Thu, 3 May 2018 16:06:19 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180503134321.pp736ou25pdwvslm@sirius.home.kraxel.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US 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: Gerd Hoffmann , Peter Maydell Cc: "=?UTF-8?Q?Daniel_P._Berrang=c3=a9?=" , Cornelia Huck , Stefan Hajnoczi , QEMU Developers 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 made= it >>>> popular and other projects (like DPDK) are doing the same thing now. >>>> >>>> The convention is YY.MM though, not YYMM. >>> >>> 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 >> >> 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 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, ... I'd really would like to avoid variant (a) ... otherwise people will confuse 18.1.1 and 18.11 (aka. 18.11.0) again... Thomas