On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 19:36:40 +0200 Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com> wrote:
> 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. I think anything that keeps release numbers in ascending order would basically work :) > > > 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, ...? Uh, and what happens in the next century? :) So many options, and all make some sense... I predict we stay with the same numbering as before :)
