>> I also like to propose to change our version number, >> as we've definitely done more that 0.1 is worth, also >> xhb is now at 1.2, while feature-wise we're ahead. >> >> Any opinions on these? >> >> 1.) 1.1.0rc1 (next logical) >> 2.) 1.2.0rc1 (current xhb major rev) >> 3.) 1.4.0rc1 (my vote) > > 4) 1.2008.0 (2008 is Windows server major rev) > Of cause, it's joke, but I do not understand why do we pay attention to > xharbour. > > Re: 3.) > I do not understand... Why 1.4.0, not 1.3.0, not 1.5.0, and not 1.734549.0? > > My understanding of x.y.z is: > z - for fix releases if x.y > y - for general next version > x - for version that have serious backward compatibility issues, and many > source should be reviewed. Ex., drop support for untyped variables - well, > the crazy example, but I do not find a good example in my mind. > > I see 1.1.0 the only right solution. > > We can also adapt scheme: 1.1, 1.3, 1.5 - stable releases, 1.2, 1.4, 1.6 - > unstable (or vice versa), but I do not see a reason for it, because we do > not do intermediate unstable releases. Usually users use stable release, or > SVN.
Well, the main reason is that users cannot really grasp the difference between Harbour and xhb. Many of them think they are the same thing. Now, if we don't adapt / react to that, and always keep low profile, the notion will be that we're not doing anything, as our version number suggest that we're just an older version of the same thing. Which isn't further from the truth. Stupid as it is, it still seem to hold true. By increasing by more than one, we're not breaking the major/minor rules or the meaning of these numbers. BTW, just a little statistics: 1.0.1 was r9429, currently we're at r11179, 1750 commits after (18% increase), ChangeLog size was 3.2MB, now it is 4.5MB, 1.3MB or 40% increase. This is huge, not a minor release. If you check the whatsnew doc, there are tons of stuff in it, even now, not even half finished. Odd-even notation: I've been also thinking about it, maybe we can use it to replace 'dev' postfix. Since our 'dev' is quite stable and lasts for quite long, maybe it merits it's own version number for easier reference. 'dev' is forgotten usually, so there is no easy way to find out someone is speaking of 'dev' or final after we do the release, unless someone specifies it clearly. Another point IMO for a new version number, 1.1.0 was being used for 8-9 months now. Brgds, Viktor _______________________________________________ Harbour mailing list Harbour@harbour-project.org http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
