Re: Dropping the .0 on release numbers?
On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 14:13:35 -0400, Noah Meyerhans wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 01:58:51PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> > The .0 actually has quite a bit relevance since it signifies a new
> > major long-term release. It also demonstrates stability when used in
> > conjunction with the third digit. 6.0.1 seems like a rather minor
> > update, which accurately describes stable point updates. Whereas, 6.1
> > seems like a much more experimental update.
>
> If somebody wants to infer such meaning from the version strings we use,
> that's up to them, but such an inference really isn't accurate. When
> you only have one "stable" version at a time, and every new stable
> version constitutes a major release, the .0 is redudant.
[0] isn't a definitive source, but it does state a standard versioning
convention pretty much in line with what most users are accustomed to.
Using that scheme, minor (i.e. point releases) are signified via third
digit updates.
> IMO, when a release identifier consists of just an integer, incrementing
> that integer is a pretty strong suggestion that a new major release has
> happened. A .0 suffix isn't necessary for that.
IMO, its cleaner to go from 1.0 to 1.1, but then again we're all
experts in version numbers, so my opinion, and yours, carry little
weight with respect to the the totality of version number opinions.
> To signify minor releases, some people do things like 5.01, indicating a
> smaller change than 6.1. That'd be one possibility for stable updates.
> Or maybe just something like 5r1 as we've done in the past.
>
> > Also, as I mentioned elsewhere, testing could start to get beta-like
> > versions numbers, which would be useful for branding snapshots (e.g.
> > 6.9.20100912).
>
> Why not just 20100912? What does "6.9" actually signify, and how is
> 6.9.20100912 distinguishable from some update to 6.9 in this scheme?
It signifies that the release was somewhere between version 6 and
version 7. The .9 signifies that its closer to 7 than 6. 20100912
itself doesn't convey where it stands in the overall release scheme.
> For the record, count me in as supporting integer release numbers. I've
> wanted to see this for some time.
This discussion is a bikesheddding effort. I suggest limiting further
discussion toward finding an appropriate standard so those with
authority to make a decision have a basis for their choice.
Best wishes,
Mike
[0] http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1128644
Reply to: