On 30.04.2018 13:21, Cornelia Huck wrote: > On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 11:33:12 +0100 > Daniel P. Berrangé <berra...@redhat.com> wrote: [...] >> Given, that we have a clear deprecation process now, my view is that >> we should formally declare that major version numbers changes are >> meaningless. As soon as you try to assign special meaning to major >> version changes, you open the door to endless debate about whether >> a particular set of changes is meaningful enough to justify the >> major version change, leading to eventually 2.42. > > I agree.
I agree with this, too. We've seen that in some v3.0 discussions during the last year. >> Two possible options >> >> a) Bump major version once a year, so we'll have 3.0, 3.1, 3.3, >> 4.0, 4.1, 4.2, 5.0, ...etc We missed the first release this >> year, so we would only have 3.0 and 3.1 this year. >> >> b) Bump major release when minor version gets double-digits. >> eg 3.0, 3.1, ...., 3.9, 3.9, 4.0, ...., 4.9, 5.0... It's just a matter of taste, but I think I'd prefer variant b). That will bump the major release approx. every three years which sounds like a good time frame for me. > If we bump the major version each year anyway, why not go the whole way > and use 2018.1, 2018.2, ... (or even <year>.<month>)? The nice thing > about that is that you can see at a glance when the release took place. ... or simply drop the first two digits and call them 18.1, 18.2, ...? Thomas
