On 15/11/14 17:44, Ilia Mirkin wrote: > 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. I guess one cannot make things idiot proof (no offence meant here), but I believe that most sensible people will notice/know that the software development diverges after a certain stage. That combined with the extremely unusual approach of using 99 as minor, should be more than a clear sign. Not to mention that there will be no release off the master branch - thus there should be nothing to get confused about in the first place.
> It makes > for a non-linear version number situation which IMO is rather > confusing. See the development diverges note above. > 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 (10.3.99) is based on the same code as 10.3. That seems like a clear enough connection to me. > it is in fact much closer to 10.4. It *may* be closer. > This is why it makes sense to call > it 10.4-rc1 and not 10.3.x. > One can make sense to call it many things, yet that's a matter of personal interpretation (same goes for me). It seems that despite no clear benefit of keeping the old way, mesa is destined to say stranger to the rest of X on this topic. -Emil > -ilia > _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
