On 05/05/15 16:54, Jan Beulich wrote: > All, > > on the hackathon we also discussed possibly changing the versioning > of Xen. The main rationale for the proposal is that (just like in many > other software projects) version numbers (in particular the major > one) currently don't really convey much information. The proposal is > to take gcc's new versioning scheme as a basis (i.e. I'm not going to > claim that the below is an exact copy of theirs): Major releases > always increment the major version number. Minor version 0 is > reserved to the development cycle, i.e. the first release in any > release series would be 5.1.0. RCs would be expressed through the > 3rd digit, i.e. the first RC of the currently being worked on release > would be 5.0.1 (there was some debate as to whether, despite > being redundant, to attach -rc1 to it to make clear this is not an > actual release). > > So comparing current and new schemes things would go > > OLD NEW > 4.6-unstable 5.0-unstable (or 5.0.0) > 4.6.0-rc1 5.0.1 (-rc1) > ... ... > 4.6.0-rcN 5.0.N (-rcN) > 4.6.0 5.1.0 > 4.6.1-rc1 5.1.1 (-rc1) > ... ... > 4.6.1 5.2.0 > > This additionally has the benefit that taking only the numeric > part of the version string then would sort properly. > > Any comments or alternative proposals are welcome.
+1 (relayed from the hackathon) ~Andrew _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel