On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 4:22 PM, Robby Findler <[email protected]> wrote: > Is there no conventional precedent for this?
There are several numbering schemes in use in projects that I know about: 1. major.minor.patch, as with us. The Linux Kernel, GCC, Subversion, Git, and many many other projects use this. 2. major.minor with no patch revisions. FreeBSD, KDE, Emacs, and other projects do this. 3. major.even-minor. with odd-minor indicating development releases. Gnome and various other projects use this. None of these in my experience have incremented by more than +1 (or +2 in case 3), even for significant changes. For example, GCC 4.5 added whole-program link time optimization and a plugin system (both very significant changes) over version 4.4. An additional thought: what if we make a similarly-significant change after 5.8? What will the new number be? -- sam th [email protected] _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
