On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Nicolai Hähnle <nhaeh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12.12.2016 16:41, Daniel Stone wrote:
>>
>> On 12 December 2016 at 15:28, Emil Velikov <emil.l.veli...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> As mentioned by others - having the second number represent the month
>>> would be better, afaict.
>>> Namely: YY.MM.PP. Thus 17.02.01 provides direct and clear feedback that
>>> - 2017 release, from the second month (Feb).
>>> - first bugfix release.
>>
>>
>> Not being funny, but does this mean that 17.02 bugfix releases would
>> have to all be done in February, or could yyyy.mm.xx with xx > 0, mean
>> that the release was not done in that month, but just the branching
>> was?
>
>
> While I think the answer to that _should_ be obvious (just look at Ubuntu
> LTS version numbers...), it is one reason why I'm not too keen about using
> the month. I'd say YY.AA.PP with YY = year, AA, PP = simply incrementing
> should be good enough and avoids silly questions like do we take the month
> of the release or of the first -rc? What if the release slips into the next
> month by a few days?
I second that. YY.AA where YY=year, AA \in {0,1,2,3}.
Marek
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
