From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Albert ARIBAUD Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2008 19:44:52 +0200 Subject: [U-Boot-Users] RFC: U-Boot version numbering In-Reply-To: <489336AA.5080701@gmail.com> References: <20080801153252.6FE35248BF@gemini.denx.de> <489336AA.5080701@gmail.com> Message-ID: <48934B94.7090803@free.fr> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Ben Warren a ?crit : > 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. Just one thing: Verson numbering can be anything you want, but I think it should be self-consistent. And on that account, I realize that the "v1" part has no real meaning wrt to the rest of the version string, which date-related -- unless there is a plan to have simultaneous v1 and v2 releases, in which case it makes sense to have "v1". Amicalement, -- Albert.