On Thu, 3 May 2018 16:06:19 +0200 Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 03.05.2018 15:43, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > > On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 10:26:40AM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote: > >> On 3 May 2018 at 10:07, Daniel P. Berrangé <berra...@redhat.com> wrote: > >>> On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 08:21:00AM +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > >>>> I don't see an issue with time-based numbering schemes. Ubuntu made it > >>>> popular and other projects (like DPDK) are doing the same thing now. > >>>> > >>>> The convention is YY.MM though, not YYMM. > >>> > >>> It feels like we've got quite a strong backing for time based versioning > >>> amongst people replying here. I'd be happy with YY.MM > >> > >> I'm not hugely in favour mostly because I don't much like > >> changing version numbering formats -- does it really gain > >> us anything? But I guess it's a bit of a bikeshed-colour question. > > > > Well, major/minor numbers don't mean anything. So I think it makes > > sense to give them a meaning, and given we do time-based releases it > > surely makes sense to use a time-based scheme. Major indicating the > > year is the obvious and common choice here. Various variants are in > > use: > > > > (a) major equals year, minor equals month (ubuntu style). > > (b) major equals year, minor counts up (mesa style). > > (c) major is bumped each year, but doesn't equal year (libvirt style). > > > > If we don't want give them a meaning, how about: > > > > (d) just drop the minor and count up major each release (systemd style)? > > > > My personal preference would be (a) or (b), because it is easy to see > > when a version was released. (b) looks more like a classic version > > number, we would have 18.0, 18.1, ... instead of 18.04, 18.08, ... > > I'd really would like to avoid variant (a) ... otherwise people will > confuse 18.1.1 and 18.11 (aka. 18.11.0) again... Just use YYYY instead of YY :)
