Albert ARIBAUD wrote: > Wolfgang Denk a écrit : > >> Hello, >> >> I would like to get your general opinion about changing the U-Boot >> version numbering scheme. >> >> To be honest, I never really understood myself how this is supposed >> to work and if the next version should be 1.3.4 or 1.4.0 or 2.0.0, i. >> e. which changes / additions are important enough to increment the >> PATCHLEVEL or even VERSION number. >> >> I therefor suggest to drop this style of version numbering and change >> to a timestamp based version number system which has been quite >> successfully used by other projects (like Ubuntu) or is under >> discussion (for Linux). >> >> My suggestion for the new version numbers is as follows: >> >> VERSION = 1 (at least for the time being) >> >> PATCHLEVEL = current year - 2000 >> >> SUBLEVEL = current month >> >> Both PATCHLEVEL and SUBLEVEL shall always be 2 digits (at least for >> the next 91+ years to come) so listings for example on an FTP server >> shall be in a sane sorting order. >> >> If we accept this system, the next release which probably comes out >> in October 2008 would be v1.08.10, and assuming the one after that >> comes out in January 2009 would be named v1.09.01 >> >> Comments? >> > > A minor :) issue I can see is that there might be *some* confusion > because of an apparent, numerical rollback from 1.3.4 back to 1.08.xx. > You're bound to encounter some folks who will ask, again and again, why > you're working on 1.02.yy when 1.3.4 is out there. > > Now an obvious solution would be to use 2 as the major number. If you're > serious about not knowing when a major number bump-up is required, then > you should be fairly ok with starting at 2.08.01 rather than 1.08.01. :) > > Joke aside: you'll get questions *anyway*, and the scheme is as fine to > me as it it. > > Another, maybe trickier, issue is: you won't be able to cleanly number > interim releases if you encounter a really serious bug right after > you've produced this month's release, will you? > > Amicalement, > Perhaps the Version itself can be removed, there doesn't seems to be a point about it. You can just do v2008.1. You can add a third field for the day for those really serious bugs:)
My two cent? ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ _______________________________________________ U-Boot-Users mailing list U-Boot-Users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/u-boot-users
