Re: versioning

[Ruediger Meier <sweet_f_a@gmx.de>]

On Wednesday 17 May 2017, Ruediger Meier wrote:
> On Wednesday 17 May 2017, Karel Zak wrote:
> >  Hi,
> >
> >  Sami has good point on IRC... do we really want to continue with
> > the current versioning schema? Now we use:
> >
> >     v2.xx[.y]
> >
> >  I don't expect v3 or v4, so the prefix v2 does not provide any
> >  information... and the 'xx' ('30' now) is already large number.
> >
> >  Suggestions:
> >
> >  1) do nothing; nobody cares and v2.31 looks good
> >
> >  2) remove '2' from the version:
> >
> >         major release:  v31
> >         update release: v31.1
>
> I don't see why v31 would be better than v3? I always appreciate if
> there are no gaps in version numbers. So v31 should be released after
> v30 ;)
>
> >  3) <your suggestion>?
>
> I would prefer either v2.31 or v3.1.
>
> v3 just to avoid big numbers. But could also be a hint regarding the
> minimum supported/tested kernel version. I believe that we have
> already a few incompatibilities for kernel <2.6.32. Maybe we could
> cleanup our code, only supporting kernel >=3.1.

Note we could still continue with 2 digit version numbers as well 
without jumping to v31:

v2.30
v2.30.1
v2.30.2
v3.0
v3.1
v3.2
v4.0
[...]

> cu,
> Rudi
>
> >  Note that for v2.30 is to late to do any change in version numbers
> >  (we need changes in our libraries and I have to update some my
> > scripts).
> >
> >     Karel
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe util-linux"
> in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html