[U-Boot-Users] RFC: U-Boot version numbering

[Ben Warren <biggerbadderben@gmail.com>]

Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
> 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,
Yes, in this case the meaning of 'v2' is "new version naming scheme", 
not "new software version".  It probably is superfluous.

regards,
Ben