My vote doesn’t count for much, but for me Fundamental.Major.Minor makes the most sense.
David R.’s designation (Major.Minor.Point) also works for me, though—and following convention is something I think is worth an awful lot. There’s something to be said for matching general expectations. David T. On Mar 28, 2015, at 4:02 PM, Chris Good <chris.g...@ozemail.com.au> wrote: > Hi All, > > I've asked for people to give their opinions on a GnuCash version numbering > system as, from my few small documentation contributions, I think this > should be defined somewhere. > > I'll summarise what I've observed so far now that's it's been a week. > > There has been some good input about what the 3 segments of the GnuCash > version number should be used for, although there is no general consensus > and some people are OK to leave the decision till later, or maybe decide if > the first 1 or 2 segments should change on a case by case basis. > > We don't seem to be getting anywhere picking names for the 3 segments of the > version number, particularly the first segment. > We've had the following suggestions (in no particular order): > > First Level: > Major > Architecture > Global > Fundamental > Framework > Basic > Base (I'm throwing this into the ring here) > Second Level: > Major > Minor > Third Level: > Minor > Micro > Bugfix > Point > Revision > Patch > > Have I missed any? > > I think it is generally agreed, (from the small number of opinions > expressed so far), that level 2 should be Major and level 3 should be Minor. > Can everyone that has an opinion please let us know, particularly regarding > the level 1 name? > > Regards, > Chris Good > _______________________________________________ > gnucash-devel mailing list > gnucash-devel@gnucash.org > https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel _______________________________________________ gnucash-devel mailing list gnucash-devel@gnucash.org https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
