From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Wolfgang Denk Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 22:16:22 +0200 Subject: [U-Boot-Users] Release numbering (was Merge Window Closed.) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 29 Aug 2007 10:55:34 EDT." <46D588E6.3020209@smiths-aerospace.com> Message-ID: <20070829201622.537532474A@gemini.denx.de> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Hello, in message <46D588E6.3020209@smiths-aerospace.com> you wrote: > > What about adopting Ubuntu's philosophy and numbering by year and month Y.M? > To be honest: I don't like it. No rational reason, just gut feeling. > This has the disadvantage of not clearly marking major changes > (discontinuities) e.g. 1.x -> 2.0 or 1.2.y -> 1.3.0. Assuming there > are no earth-shattering discontinuities in the future, that isn't a There will be such things, I guess... 2.0 is already in a repo... > 1) It acknowledges that u-boot (as with most open source projects) is > subject to continuous rolling improvement. Oops? I don't see any difference for this between onve versioning scheme and any other, as long as the versions change frequently ;-) > 2) It eliminates the debate of whether the major or just the minor > number needs to be rolled. ACK. But actually this is more a disadvantage - see above. > 3) When someone says "my build based on version 7.8 is broken" we can > scale our scorn based on how old the release is without having to look > it up. ;-) I never look this up. Anything that is not TOT is "too old" :-) > 4) This is also in line with Linus's current philosophy that the kernel > will be 2.6.xxxxxx forever. (I suspect this won't hold literally true > forever, I predict the "2.6" prefix will eventually be dropped.) Ummm... but Linux does NOT use da date based version number. > Going to date-based numbering makes a lot of sense to me. I feel this is mostly a matter of taste. I have been using date based labels all the time when U-Boot was still in CVS (see all the LABEL_200y_mm_dd_HHMM tags we have). And I must say that I really got sick of this. It served a specific need in CVS, but I never needed this again in git. If it was not for a public release process I wouln't need any version number at all. But whatever we may use, please not date based stamps. I think they are *stupid*. JUst my 0.02 EUR. Best regards, Wolfgang Denk -- DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de The White Rabbit put on his spectacles. "Where shall I begin, please your Majesty ?" he asked. "Begin at the beginning,", the King said, very gravely, "and go on till you come to the end: then stop." -- Lewis Carroll