On Thursday 05 November 2009, Øyvind Harboe wrote: > 0.3.0 => the first 0 is meaningful. It conveys that we feel that > it still needs a lot of work. Not only in terms of code but also > process and community. > > 3 => the real release number > > trailing 0 => we have yet to cut a bugfix release as we intend > to have short cycles.
It'll always need work. Only the "3" is meaningful. :) > Lets keep things as-is unless there is wide agreement > to switch to something *significantly* better. Right. "3" would be weak. > As cycles can be *long* in embedded development, there is > nothing wrong with using a tool that is several years old, so > I'm glad the date/year isn't in there. Nothing wrong with it, but regardless it's useful info. Note that U-Boot is used in embedded development, and they chose the "2009.11" style numbering on grounds that it was better than the "x.y.z" numbering. It's a lot more meaningful to people ... it's easy to remember "issue X resolved late last year" and thus to know that a "2009.x" release has it resolved. _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
