On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 6:52 AM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.veli...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 14 November 2014 19:50, Ilia Mirkin <imir...@alum.mit.edu> wrote: >> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.veli...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> Hello all, >>> >>> This is an old question that I had laying around - why doesn't mesa use >>> a more conventional numbering for the development/rc releases ? >>> >>> Eg. >>> mesa 10.4.0-rc1 -> 10.3.99.901 >>> mesa 10.4.0-rc2 -> 10.3.99.902 >>> ... >>> mesa 10.4.0 -> 10.4.0 >> >> Something else that occurred to me -- you want to still make a stable >> 10.3 release, so 10.3.x will come out after 10.3.99.901? Seems >> confusing... >> > Not sure I fully understand what the confusing part it is. Can you elaborate ? > > Perhaps the following examples should clear any of your confusion: > > 10.3 branch: > 10.3.0 > 10.3.0.901 (10.3.1-rc1) > 10.3.0.902 (10.3.1-rc2) // if needed > 10.3.1 > 10.3.1.901 (10.3.2-rc1) > 10.3.1.902 (10.3.2-rc2) // if needed > ... you get the idea. > > At the same time > > Master branch: > 10.3.99 (10.4-dev)
So you make this release. One might *think* that the latest 10.3.x is 10.3.99 then. But it's not. Since *after* this release, you'll put out a 10.3.2, which will have fixes that 10.3.99 doesn't have. It makes for a non-linear version number situation which IMO is rather confusing. With the current version numbering scheme that ~every project uses except X.org, it's very clear what the latest release is in a particular line. Also, 10.3.99 has no connection to 10.3 at all, it is in fact much closer to 10.4. This is why it makes sense to call it 10.4-rc1 and not 10.3.x. -ilia _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev