On Thursday 19 February 2009 10:33:21 Will Coleda wrote: > If we're calling 1.0/1.5/2.0 -milestone- releases, then they should > actually be milestones. [1]
They are. They're the milestones after which we start removing deprecated features. > If 1.5 is released in July 2009 regardless of what's in the release, > then calling it a milestone release (and giving it a special version > number to note the fact) is misleading. If that's the intent, then I > would recommend dropping the version numbers and just calling it > "200907". I would very much like to drop major.minor.patchlevel version numbers and all of the assorted numerology that goes along with them. > I would rather see the feature set required for milestone releases be > fixed (or at least fairly firm), have monthly releases of the 1.0 > milestone branch occur until 1.5 is ready to ship, and then update the > release date to "whenever it happens.". I've seen plenty of projects set a hard feature set and slip releases by months or years. See Debian, Perl 5.10.1, Django, Gentoo.... > [1] equivalent to the pre-PDS world where going from 0.7.1 to 0.8.0 > (e.g.) indicated we'd actually changed something major, but if we had > gone to 0.7.2 instead, it would have indicated only minor updates. the > release still occurs monthly, but features drove whether or not it > made sense to consider it a milestone release or not. That's exactly the kind of numerology I want to avoid. Version numbers should always increase. That's all you can say about them. -- c _______________________________________________ http://lists.parrot.org/mailman/listinfo/parrot-dev
