Follow-up Comment #3, task #2171 (project savane):
> I think using a dot to mention subrelease would lead to think
> there are real release. While 1.1+1 would not be a release
> different from 1.1, just a fixed version of 1.1.
Again, I don't agree here. As I said, the version numbering scheme of
MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH is highly common amongst free software. I think that most
users (especially those who install and maintain Savane) are more familiar
with a dot separated version number, compared to MAJOR.MINOR+PATCH.
> Using dots is confusing as it looks like it's just one more
> minor release, while it would mean that it really replace the
> previous and that no one should use the previous.
If you're concerned about this, I suggest to state quite clearly on the
project's main page the meaning of version numbers (see below). Granted,
Savane did use the third digit for new (minor) releases in the past, when in
fact the second digit would have been more appropriate. But that does not
justify the introduction of a new (and uncommon) version separator, in my
opinion.
> Also + is rarely used by distros and in a way that not be
> really a conflict for us
Yes, currently. But we'll never know how things will evolve, and sticking
with the current widely adopted standard should be a safe bet. Take Debian
for example: They use the "+" for version numbers like "1.0+cvs1.1rc",
meaning that the packaged version is the release candidate for the (upcoming)
1.1 version fetched from CVS. An example Savane version for Debian of
"1.3+1+cvs1.4" would be really irritating.
> (I guess that distros could even skip it, it does not really
> matters for distros.
Hm, if 1.1+1 is an important bugfix for 1.1, which should definitely be used
instead of 1.1, then I would expect distros to provide the updated package.
> I cannot think of any other sign that would not break urls
> that would be satisfying. Maybe 1.1:1? That would be less easy
> to understand.
I agree here. Please note, however, that both "+" and ":" are not really good
choices for urls, because they are reserved (see RFC 3986, which was recently
turned into an accepted standard) and must be escaped (using the percent-sign
method). The characters "-", ".", and "_" are not reserved, though.
Why don't we state this on the main page of Savane:
"Savane uses the common MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH version numbering scheme.
A new MAJOR version marks a significant change in the code. The upgrade from
one major version to another may be rather hard, may require new prerequisite
technologies, full data dump, reload and reindexing, as well as other major
configuration adapatations, possibly with an important manual intervention.
A new MINOR version indicates new functionality and bugfixes. The upgrade
from one minor version to another may be laborious but is relatively
painless, in that some table changes and data manipulations may be necessary
but they are somewhat smaller in nature, easier to grasp, and possibly done
by an automated script.
A new PATCH version means that only bugs are fixed, without adding any
substantially new functionality. That is, the only new functionality that is
added is that of a bug fix nature. The upgrade from one patch level to
another is usually straightforward."
Last, but not least, I hope that we'll never need to release a Savane version
of 1.1(.|+)1, so this would become a non-issue. ;-)
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<http://gna.org/task/?func=detailitem&item_id=2171>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via/by Gna!
http://gna.org/
_______________________________________________
Savane-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/savane-dev
