And once again - 0.22 seems to be forgotten for an unexplained reason. I urge to stick to original Arun's proposal and use 0.22 as 2.0 With the correction I like the following proposal.
Cos On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 06:42PM, Matt Foley wrote: > I agree with some prior posters that renaming the 0.20-security sustaining > branch could be confusing. > How about the following (pseudo-code)? > > ## Just before we are ready to make rc0 for release 0.20.205.1, do: > svn copy branch-0.20-security-205 branch-1.0 > ## and actually release it from branch-1.0 as release 1.0.0 > > ## Then, after the 1.0.0 release vote ends successfully, do: > svn copy branch-0.20-security branch-1.1 > ## This will pick up the remaining changes done to date, which would > ## have gone into 0.20.206.0, and will instead go into release 1.1.0, > ## sometime in the future > > ## However, since branch-0.23 was just recently split from trunk, it should > be > ## upgraded to 2.0 in the usual way, with a rename: > svn mv branch-0.23 branch-2.0 > ## and also rename the actual release: > svn mv tags/release-0.23.0 tags/release-2.0.0 > ## The work currently going into the future 0.23.1 will become 2.0.1, not > 2.1.0. > ## Work going into trunk will become 2.1 or higher in the future. > > This is a concrete, actionable proposal. In an effort to establish > consensus, would it be appropriate to call a vote on it? > --Matt > > > On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 5:56 PM, Doug Cutting <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 11/15/2011 05:49 PM, Eli Collins wrote: > > > Are you suggesting a two part version scheme? Ie > > > > > > 0.23.0 -> 2.0 > > > 0.23.1 -> 2.1 > > > > I didn't specify. We could either do that or: > > > > 0.23.0 -> 2.0.0 > > 0.23.1 -> 2.0.1 > > ... > > 0.24.0 -> 2.1.0 > > ... > > > > I don't care which much. Do you? > > > > > fwiw I'd map 0.20.200.0 to 1.0, 203.0 would be 1.3, 205.0, would be > > > 1.5. I wouldn't rename 21 since we've abandoned it. I wouldn't rename > > > 22 either since it both has features that are in 20x, and 20x has > > > features not in 22, and is not yet released or stable. Seems hard to > > > come up with a reasonable version number for it. > > > > This is about the fourth or fifth different proposal around these. I'm > > not sure things are congealing around a consensus. I don't want to > > stand in the way of that, but I think we might first settle the part > > that we're nearer consensus on. > > > > Doug > >
