From: "Junio C Hamano" <gits...@pobox.com>
"Philip Oakley" <philipoak...@iee.org> writes:
If we are progressing from V1.9 to V2.0 quickly (one cycle?), which I
understand is the plan, then mixing the minor development items
(patch
series which progress to master) with the maintenance fixes over the
next few months, thus only having 1.9.x releases, sounds reasonable.
If there is going to be separate maintenance fixes from the patch
series
developments then keeping to the previous 1.9.x.y for maintenance
would
be better.
Will the new rapid counting continue after V2.0, such that we get to
V2.9 -> V3.0 rather more quickly than V1.0 -> V2.0 ?
The key discriminator would be to say when V2.0 will be out for
deciding
the V1.9 sequence.
I do not quite follow. The time distance between v1.9 and v2.0
should not affect anything. If it is a long road, there may be
v1.10, v1.11, v1.12, ...
I wasn't sure if you were considering going past either 1.9.9 to 1.9.10,
and going from 1.9 to 1.10 was something that hadn't occurred to me
(somewhat of a Doh! moment maybe).
before we have v2.0. If not, v2.0 may
immediately follow v1.9 as a new feature release. There may be
maintenance releases based on v1.9 that does not add any new
features.
Right now, if you count the maintenance releases, there are
potentially four kinds of version gaps:
- Between v1.8.5 and v1.8.5.1, there are fixes but no new features;
- Between v1.8.5 and v1.8.6, there are new features but no
compatibility worries;
- Between v1.8.6 and v1.9.0, there are new features, no
compatibility worries, but somehow the jump is larger than the
one between v1.8.5 and v1.8.6; and
- Between v1.9.0 and v2.0.0, there are new features and also
compatibility concerns.
Switching to 2-digit scheme and calling the upcoming one v1.9 (and
the next major one v2.0) was meant to make the naming more flat,
OK I'd buy that flattening approach.
as
the third item in the above list "somehow the jump is larger" does
not seem to add much value to the end users. So the logical
numbering becomes more like this:
- Between v1.9 and v1.9.1, there are fixes but no new features;
- Between v1.9.x and v1.10, there are new features but no
compatibility worries;
- Between v1.9.x and v2.0, there are new features and also
compatibility concerns.
With a twist, though. There seem to be many places where at least
three digits are assumed to exist in our version numbers, so in
order to make life easier, the updated document says vX.Y (a feature
release) will identify itself as vX.Y.0
Yes. I'd be happy to support that third 'digit' for the maint releases,
with zero as the initial release.
Git Gui has a version string checking routine but its regex only needs
two parts X.Y (we looked into the version string back in $gmane/217189
Thanks for the clarifications.
Philip.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
