Hi folks, I filed this as an issue in our new Initiatives space on GitLab:
https://gitlab.gnome.org/Teams/documentation/initiatives/-/issues/7 On Wed, 2020-09-16 at 14:17 -0400, Shaun McCance wrote: > Hi all, > > GNOME is changing its versioning scheme. The next major GNOME release > will be GNOME 40: > > https://discourse.gnome.org/t/new-gnome-versioning-scheme/4235 > > This is a good opportunity for us to change how we record versions in > Mallard revision elements. Mallard provides three attributes to > specify > the version number: version, docversion, and pkgversion. There's some > history that I won't go into, but the short version is that we aren't > consistent. Different documents use different attributes. Some record > just major-minor (3.38), and some record major-minor-micro (3.38.0). > It's a mess. > > There's an open MEP to change this in Mallard 1.2: > > http://projectmallard.org/mep/mep0006 > > Basically, deprecate docversion and pkgversion, and allow version to > take a space-separated list of version tokens. So, for example, you > could do this: > > <revision version="gnome:40 ubuntu:21.04 fedora:34" .../> > > We would need to wait for Mallard 1.2 (and for tools to catch up) to > do > these version lists, but the good news is we don't need to wait for > Mallard 1.2 to just start recording our versions like this: > > <revision version="gnome:40" .../> > > So, that's my proposal. With the coming release cycle, we stop using > docversion and pkgversion, and always use the version attribute with > the gnome: prefix. And you never include the minor version. You can > then always check statuses with: > > yelp-check status --version gnome:40 *.page > > I also have a fairly simple online status tracker that will show you > this information online. I'm going to ask to get this running on a > GNOME server somewhere, but here's a preview: > > https://people.gnome.org/~shaunm/docstatus/ > > There's an open question as to what non-core apps should do. > Honestly, > I think the answer is "whatever the maintainers want". If they're > following the GNOME release cadence, and especially if the folks on > this list work on the docs, they should probably follow this. But > they > could also just use whatever version numbers make sense for them. > > I'm very interested in people's opinions on this. I want to make sure > that status tracking is actually useful and helps us keep our docs > current. > > Thanks, > Shaun > > > _______________________________________________ > gnome-doc-list mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-doc-list _______________________________________________ gnome-doc-list mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-doc-list
