On 03.05.2018 15:43, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 10:26:40AM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote: >> On 3 May 2018 at 10:07, Daniel P. Berrangé <berra...@redhat.com> wrote: >>> On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 08:21:00AM +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: >>>> I don't see an issue with time-based numbering schemes. Ubuntu made it >>>> popular and other projects (like DPDK) are doing the same thing now. >>>> >>>> The convention is YY.MM though, not YYMM. >>> >>> It feels like we've got quite a strong backing for time based versioning >>> amongst people replying here. I'd be happy with YY.MM >> >> I'm not hugely in favour mostly because I don't much like >> changing version numbering formats -- does it really gain >> us anything? But I guess it's a bit of a bikeshed-colour question. > > Well, major/minor numbers don't mean anything. So I think it makes > sense to give them a meaning, and given we do time-based releases it > surely makes sense to use a time-based scheme. Major indicating the > year is the obvious and common choice here. Various variants are in > use: > > (a) major equals year, minor equals month (ubuntu style). > (b) major equals year, minor counts up (mesa style). > (c) major is bumped each year, but doesn't equal year (libvirt style). > > If we don't want give them a meaning, how about: > > (d) just drop the minor and count up major each release (systemd style)? > > My personal preference would be (a) or (b), because it is easy to see > when a version was released. (b) looks more like a classic version > number, we would have 18.0, 18.1, ... instead of 18.04, 18.08, ...
I'd really would like to avoid variant (a) ... otherwise people will confuse 18.1.1 and 18.11 (aka. 18.11.0) again... Thomas