On Tue, Feb 01, 2005 at 09:43:29PM -0800, Matt Massie wrote: > guys- > > i'd like to have an informal vote. please email whether you think this > release should be 2.6.0 or 3.0.0.
You already know my position, but let me expand of my reasoning. In my opinion, version numbers are sign posts for users. When a user sees the minor version change, they don't (or at least shouldn't) expect to have to replace all their config files. They should expect to have to read the release notes and the might want to make some change, but as I user I don't expect be forced to make changes on every machine a piece of software is installed on. If I see a major version change, I know I will probably need to make changed in my deployment or even redeploy entirely. That's the case with this release. If you accept that version numbers are for users, also accept that users don't care about your implementation. It's almost entirely irrelevant (there are some exceptions of course, but they are nearly all emotional issues such as convincing people that programs written in Java aren't slow). All users care about is how they use the program and what it does. There are exceptions to this scheme. OpenSSL for instance makes incompatible changes to well established config file formats, APIs, and ABIs and then changes the tertiary number. This leads to the fact that every security officer and OS release engineer I know curses them on a regular basis. -- Brooks -- Any statement of the form "X is the one, true Y" is FALSE. PGP fingerprint 655D 519C 26A7 82E7 2529 9BF0 5D8E 8BE9 F238 1AD4
pgpiEFMUMHLlX.pgp
Description: PGP signature
