Rainer Gerhards wrote: > Hi Peter, > > thanks for the feedback. So it looks like we go for the 4-number scheme. > > If I look at the migration case, I am tempted to do a one-time move to > 4.0.x.x (stable) and 4.1.x.x (devel) and drop the v3 tree (flagged as > interim devel release) to prevent any confusion about version numbers. > Changing from a 3-number to a 4-number scheme within the same major > release sounds confusing in itself to me.
I support the suggestion above. Trying to number within v3 is going to wreak havoc on attempts to update properly. p.s. To be perfectly honest, I didn't think a move to 4-number was even necessary, but I think you'd know better than anyone else what is in the pipeline for rsyslog, and if those are major enough to require "major" number to be changed, then, yeah, it wouldn't make sense to see 10.x.x within a year or two. johnn _______________________________________________ rsyslog mailing list http://lists.adiscon.net/mailman/listinfo/rsyslog
