On Sat, Mar 04, 2017 at 07:06:51PM +0000, José Abílio Matos wrote: > Now regarding the other issue at hand and looking into history we have that: > > 2.2.0 -> 2016.05 > 2.1.0 -> 2014.04 > 2.0.0 -> 2011.04 > 1.6.0 -> 2008.11 > 1.5.0 -> 2007.07 > 1.4.0 -> 2006.03 > > First the obvious conclusion, those number are completely arbitrary. Each of > those versions has been a major version on its own. And as usual I propose to > go the way of gcc (not necessarily dropping the first .0 ;-) ). And use > simply > a major number and a minor number for the version. > > An yearly version on the other hand seems a good compromise. Again gcc is a > good model.
I don't have a strong opinion on this. Does anyone else? Scott
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
