The numbering you mention gives the same expectation to me. Maybe we can hold off deciding the number until we build the list of changes. This way we can know if there are indeed breaking changes.
Best, Matias On Sun, Sep 13, 2020, at 19:40, Gregory Nutt wrote: > > > I've been assiging various PRs from both repos to 10.0 milestone. > > Please also see if you think not assigned ones are to be surely included > > and assign them. I've not done this with issues as many are old ones > > for which no PR was proposed. > > > > Regarding bumping release: I think we had many major changes > > and I was under the impression that we indeed should do a major > > bump (hence the 10.0 milestone name). > > > > But maybe I've read that wrong > > Well, I think that the issue is that we need to decide what the major > release number means. If it means that the code users have under 9.x > will not no longer work, it should be boosted to 10.0. Otherwise, under > what conditions to we boost the major revision number? > > Going from 8.x to 9.0 did not follow these rules. There was not > particular incompatibility at all. The major number changed only > because it was the first Apache release. Other people have suggested > boosting the major number to celebrate the NuttX2019 event. The only > point is that we need to decide what these numbers mean and be consistent. > > As a user, I expect to see issues if I upgraded from (n).(x) to (n+1).0. > I would not expect to see issues if I upgraded from (n).(x) to > (n).(n+1). What would be your expectation? > > >
