From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ben Warren Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2008 09:15:38 -0700 Subject: [U-Boot-Users] RFC: U-Boot version numbering In-Reply-To: References: <20080801153252.6FE35248BF@gemini.denx.de> Message-ID: <489336AA.5080701@gmail.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Kumar Gala wrote: > On Aug 1, 2008, at 10:32 AM, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > > >> Hello, >> >> I would like to get your general opinion about changing the U-Boot >> version numbering scheme. >> >> To be honest, I never really understood myself how this is supposed >> to work and if the next version should be 1.3.4 or 1.4.0 or 2.0.0, i. >> e. which changes / additions are important enough to increment the >> PATCHLEVEL or even VERSION number. >> >> I therefor suggest to drop this style of version numbering and change >> to a timestamp based version number system which has been quite >> successfully used by other projects (like Ubuntu) or is under >> discussion (for Linux). >> >> My suggestion for the new version numbers is as follows: >> >> VERSION = 1 (at least for the time being) >> >> PATCHLEVEL = current year - 2000 >> >> SUBLEVEL = current month >> >> Both PATCHLEVEL and SUBLEVEL shall always be 2 digits (at least for >> the next 91+ years to come) so listings for example on an FTP server >> shall be in a sane sorting order. >> >> If we accept this system, the next release which probably comes out >> in October 2008 would be v1.08.10, and assuming the one after that >> comes out in January 2009 would be named v1.09.01 >> > > If we go to date based versions. I'd prefer we keep year as 4 digits: > > v1.2008.10 > v1.2009.01 > > It just seems easier to me at a visual level when I look at try and > compare versions. > > - k > I vote for this one, but starting at v2. regards, Ben