On Sat, Apr 07, 2001 at 12:01:01PM -0700, devl-request at freenetproject.org wrote:
> > On 07 Apr 2001 20:38:28 +0200, Stefan Reich wrote: > > > > > That's what I wanted to hear. I say go for 0.3.8.2! (what a horribly > long > > > version number...) > > > > > > -Stefan > > > > Quick request, can we start putting the version number somewhere in the > > freenet programs or in the zip / tar.gz file? Right now the only > > version info available is build number, and even the directory name is > > Freenet/, not Freenet-0.3.8.2. I can never tell exactly which version > > I'm running. Are the version numbers being chosen to satisfy logic or psychology? Whereas a jump to 0.3.8.2 "feels" less significant than a jump to 0.3.9 and one could argue for choosing to version this way, I'm not sure it's really that useful developers or users. A more logical versioning scheme might use major/minor/subminor numbers, where the major number gets incremented when backwards compatibility is broken, the minor number gets incremented when new features are added (forward compatibility is broken), and the subminor number gets incremented when neither forwards nor backwards compatibility is broken (e.g. bugfixes, added documentation, etc). For me at least, this greatly simplifies the decision on whether or not it's worth it to upgrade. Subminor increments are definite upgrades (they fix existing problems but don't introduce anything new that might be broken), minor increments are the "upgrade if you're interested in using new features" type, and major increments are the things you upgrade to only if you're not concerned with backwards compatibility. m.
