On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 2:43 AM, Pavel Sanda <sa...@lyx.org> wrote: > José Abílio Matos wrote: > > FWIW, IMHO it all comes to: > > > > What is the event that we think is relevant to jump to the 3.x series? > > > > If none then the first number in the 2.x.y moniker is irrelevant and it > should > > be dropped. > > You can take the first number just as a buffer for the case the second > number becomes > way too big and becomes impractical to remember it, and you cam make the > same trick > which kernel devs did when they switch to 3.x series. > > True, there was no real reason why to jump from 1.6 to 2.0 and not simply > continue > e.g. to 1.9. If I remember it was actually you who strongly pushed forward > for 2.0 > for reasons I never really understood; perhaps that marketing thing? :) > Not that I see who we are competing with, unlike firefox there's no real > competitor > unless you count SWP :) > > In other words, I think our numbering is just fine :)
While I agree with Pavel that the current version number approach taken is fine, I disagree with the comment "You can take the first number just as a buffer for the case the second number becomes way too big and becomes impractical to remember it". That seems entirely too arbitrary and would suggest basing version number changes on concrete criteria such as a semantic system <http://semver.org/>. Incidentally, humans can (or at least, could) remember 10+ digit phone numbers, so I suspect the second place can have quite a few digits before one would need to arbitrarily increment the first place. Would this ever occur in practice?
