Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Is it time for 2.x.y -> x.y?

Expand Messages
  • Wietse Venema
    After the confusion that Postfix 2.10 is not Postfix 2.1, maybe it is time to change the release numbering scheme. We could to the Linux thing where 2.mumble
    Message 1 of 30 , May 31 1:56 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      After the confusion that Postfix 2.10 is not Postfix 2.1, maybe it
      is time to change the release numbering scheme.

      We could to the Linux thing where 2.mumble was followed by 3.mumble.

      or we could do it like Sun. After releasing Solaris 2.0 .. 2.6,
      they changed the numbering scheme with Solaris 7 which was released
      way back in 1998. Nowadays, many software distributions change the
      major release number frequently, if not every time.

      If we were to change the release numbering scheme like this with
      Postfix then we would immediately be free from the pain of getting
      sites to adopt Postfix 3.0, because they would no longer expect the
      pain of transitioning from Python 2->3, from perl 5->6 and the like.
      The next Postfix release would be 11.0, so 3.x would never happen.

      Wietse
    • Christoph Anton Mitterer
      Hi. I think the best is major.minor.patch, with major being really ground breaking changes, or those that add major incompatibilities... e.g. getting rid of
      Message 2 of 30 , May 31 2:04 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi.

        I think the best is major.minor.patch, with major being really ground
        breaking changes, or those that add major incompatibilities... e.g.
        getting rid of all kind of legacy config option names or such...

        Minor being used for all other feature releases (which do not add major
        incompatibilities or greatly change the inner workings of postfix).

        Patch, ... any bugfixe releases... i.e. also for long term supported
        version.


        Jumping to 3 like in Linux made sense when the version numbering schema
        is changed.


        Cheers,
        Chris.
      • /dev/rob0
        ... The 2.10=2.1 confusion is something we commonly see in IRC. On the plus side, it shows that the person was reading actual Postfix documentation. On the
        Message 3 of 30 , May 31 2:43 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 04:56:11PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
          > After the confusion that Postfix 2.10 is not Postfix 2.1, maybe
          > it is time to change the release numbering scheme.

          The 2.10=2.1 confusion is something we commonly see in IRC. On the
          plus side, it shows that the person was reading actual Postfix
          documentation. On the minus side, it shows that they used the web
          documentation rather than their own version-specific pages.

          > We could to the Linux thing where 2.mumble was followed by
          > 3.mumble.

          Eww. I did not like this.

          > or we could do it like Sun. After releasing Solaris 2.0 .. 2.6,
          > they changed the numbering scheme with Solaris 7 which was
          > released way back in 1998. Nowadays, many software distributions
          > change the major release number frequently, if not every time.
          >
          > If we were to change the release numbering scheme like this with
          > Postfix then we would immediately be free from the pain of
          > getting sites to adopt Postfix 3.0, because they would no longer
          > expect the pain of transitioning from Python 2->3, from perl
          > 5->6 and the like. The next Postfix release would be 11.0, so
          > 3.x would never happen.

          My wish is that Postfix 3.0, should it ever happen, would be a
          rewrite which sacrifices backward compatibility and the easy
          upgradability. Many things were learned over the course of Postfix
          1.x/2.x development, and a Postfix 3.0 (in my ideal world, that is)
          should have the benefits of those lessons without the burdens of the
          past.

          Yes, I know you have cut back on Postfix development time, so it
          might never happen. I'm just saying: let a major version be a major
          version.

          Anyone who looks at the "Postfix Source Code" download page can
          figure it out. "Postfix 2.10 stable release" in <h1> at the top,
          followed by "Postfix 2.11 experimental release" and then the "Past
          stable releases" section.

          Problem is: they aren't looking there. They got their Postfix from a
          distributor.

          My vote: add a brief note to the introduction of postconf.5.html
          describing the release numbering scheme. Repeat that note below at
          postconf.5.html#mail_version .

          In the "old way", major.minor.patchlevel versioning had real meaning.
          What's wrong with that?
          --
          http://rob0.nodns4.us/ -- system administration and consulting
          Offlist GMX mail is seen only if "/dev/rob0" is in the Subject:
        • Quanah Gibson-Mount
          ... I agree. major.minor.patch makes the most sense, and is the easiest to follow. Major should only change as necessary. I personally dislike the way in
          Message 4 of 30 , May 31 2:57 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            --On Friday, May 31, 2013 4:43 PM -0500 "/dev/rob0" <rob0@...> wrote:

            > My wish is that Postfix 3.0, should it ever happen, would be a
            > rewrite which sacrifices backward compatibility and the easy
            > upgradability. Many things were learned over the course of Postfix
            > 1.x/2.x development, and a Postfix 3.0 (in my ideal world, that is)
            > should have the benefits of those lessons without the burdens of the
            > past.

            I agree. major.minor.patch makes the most sense, and is the easiest to
            follow. "Major" should only change as necessary. I personally dislike the
            way in which a lot of products change their major version willy-nilly. It
            makes versioning meaningless. major.minor.patch has very specific and
            exact meaning. If people aren't able to logically follow that 10 > 1, then
            perhaps they need some schooling in remedial math.

            --Quanah

            --

            Quanah Gibson-Mount
            Sr. Member of Technical Staff
            Zimbra, Inc
            A Division of VMware, Inc.
            --------------------
            Zimbra :: the leader in open source messaging and collaboration
          • Noel Jones
            ... Maybe what s really needed is to document the version numbers on the postfix.org home page, rather than on the download source code page where no one sees
            Message 5 of 30 , May 31 2:59 PM
            • 0 Attachment
              On 5/31/2013 3:56 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
              > After the confusion that Postfix 2.10 is not Postfix 2.1, maybe it
              > is time to change the release numbering scheme.
              >
              > We could to the Linux thing where 2.mumble was followed by 3.mumble.
              >
              > or we could do it like Sun. After releasing Solaris 2.0 .. 2.6,
              > they changed the numbering scheme with Solaris 7 which was released
              > way back in 1998. Nowadays, many software distributions change the
              > major release number frequently, if not every time.
              >
              > If we were to change the release numbering scheme like this with
              > Postfix then we would immediately be free from the pain of getting
              > sites to adopt Postfix 3.0, because they would no longer expect the
              > pain of transitioning from Python 2->3, from perl 5->6 and the like.
              > The next Postfix release would be 11.0, so 3.x would never happen.
              >
              > Wietse
              >


              Maybe what's really needed is to document the version numbers on the
              postfix.org home page, rather than on the download source code page
              where no one sees it.

              ----
              The current postfix stable release is $mail_version, released
              $mail_release_date

              Stable releases are called "Postfix a.b.c", where a is the major
              release number, b is the minor release number, and c is the patchlevel.

              [maybe also list current still-supported past releases]
              ----


              I like the current numbering scheme, and don't think a change is
              needed. But I'm getting old and set in my ways.

              Unequivocal no on postfix 3.

              There's probably less room for confusion if the next release is
              postfix 11.0, but that may complicate things whenever there is a
              major incompatible change. But with the careful attention you've
              always given to backward compatibility, that may never be an issue.

              Bottom line, I think changing the major version number is far more a
              marketing decision than a technical one. You get to make the call
              on those.

              (just saw rob0's note echoing documenting the version numbers
              somewhere more likely to be seen. maybe that's all that's needed.)



              -- Noel Jones
            • LuKreme
              ... The amount of confusion doesn t seem worth changing to me. I know that some people will see 2.1.1 and think that s exactly the same thing as 2.10.1, but
              Message 6 of 30 , May 31 3:48 PM
              • 0 Attachment
                On 31 May 2013, at 14:56 , Wietse Venema <wietse@...> wrote:
                > After the confusion that Postfix 2.10 is not Postfix 2.1, maybe it
                > is time to change the release numbering scheme.

                The amount of confusion doesn't seem worth changing to me. I know that some people will see 2.1.1 and think that's exactly the same thing as 2.10.1, but how many, really, are mail admins? And how many of those are relying on ancient versions because they are relying on broken distros?

                > If we were to change the release numbering scheme like this with
                > Postfix then we would immediately be free from the pain of getting
                > sites to adopt Postfix 3.0, because they would no longer expect the
                > pain of transitioning from Python 2->3, from perl 5->6 and the like.
                > The next Postfix release would be 11.0, so 3.x would never happen.

                If Postfix moves to 3.0 I would expect a radically new version that abandons all the kruft of previous versions and basically is a fresh start with modern sensibilities and defaults. Not that I am saying 2.x is krufty or insensible, but if there's a 3.0 I hope that it is a rethinking/retooling and not just a 'some people are confused, so we're going to change).

                Besides, 2.11 is coming up RSN, and that will end most of the confusion, I expect.

                I think the prospect of going from v2.10 to v11 would be amusing. That doesn't mean I'm in favor of it, but it would be funny.

                Of course, it doesn't matter in the end, name it what you want, it's still going to be postfix.

                --
                "If I were willing to change my morals for convenience or financial
                gain, we wouldn't be arguing, because I'd already *be* a Republican."
                -- Wil Shipley
              • Christoph Anton Mitterer
                ... Absolutely a +1 :D This could/should include changing all config options to a homogeneous naming schema (I mean in the places where this isn t the case
                Message 7 of 30 , May 31 3:59 PM
                • 0 Attachment
                  On Fri, 2013-05-31 at 16:43 -0500, /dev/rob0 wrote:
                  > My wish is that Postfix 3.0, should it ever happen, would be a
                  > rewrite which sacrifices backward compatibility and the easy
                  > upgradability. Many things were learned over the course of Postfix
                  > 1.x/2.x development, and a Postfix 3.0 (in my ideal world, that is)
                  > should have the benefits of those lessons without the burdens of the
                  > past.
                  Absolutely a +1 :D

                  This could/should include changing all config options to a homogeneous
                  naming schema (I mean in the places where this isn't the case yet, for
                  legacy reasons).


                  And I'd that you probably can't help people who think 2.1 == 2.10 ;)


                  Cheers,
                  Chris.
                • Robert Lopez
                  ... I agree with /dev/rob0, Chris, and the others who agree to leave it as is. -- Robert Lopez
                  Message 8 of 30 , May 31 4:10 PM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    > On Fri, 2013-05-31 at 16:43 -0500, /dev/rob0 wrote:
                    >> My wish is that Postfix 3.0, should it ever happen, would be a
                    >> rewrite which sacrifices backward compatibility and the easy
                    >> upgradability. Many things were learned over the course of Postfix
                    >> 1.x/2.x development, and a Postfix 3.0 (in my ideal world, that is)
                    >> should have the benefits of those lessons without the burdens of the
                    >> past.
                    > Absolutely a +1 :D
                    >
                    > This could/should include changing all config options to a homogeneous
                    > naming schema (I mean in the places where this isn't the case yet, for
                    > legacy reasons).
                    >
                    >
                    > And I'd that you probably can't help people who think 2.1 == 2.10 ;)
                    >
                    >
                    > Cheers,
                    > Chris.

                    I agree with /dev/rob0, Chris, and the others who agree to leave it as is.

                    --
                    Robert Lopez
                  • Larry Stone
                    ... But why should they? As a number, 2.1 and 2.10 are the same thing (except for implied precision). And I can see possible confusion there. But 2.1.0 and
                    Message 9 of 30 , May 31 4:52 PM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      On May 31, 2013, at 5:48 PM, LuKreme <kremels@...> wrote:

                      > I know that some people will see 2.1.1 and think that's exactly the same thing as 2.10.1,

                      But why should they? As a number, 2.1 and 2.10 are the same thing (except for implied precision). And I can see possible confusion there.

                      But 2.1.0 and 2.10.0 are not valid numbers. Is the 1 and 10 right of the decimal point and the same? Or are they left of the decimal point and different? Uh, both. Or maybe neither. Because 2.1.0 and 2.10.0 aren't numbers. Rather, they're three separate numbers using dots as separators rather than as a decimal point.

                      No doubt no matter what you do, some people will get confused. So stick with what we have which fits with much other software.

                      --
                      Larry Stone
                      lstone19@...
                      http://www.stonejongleux.com/
                    • Scott Kitterman
                      ... From a packaging perspective, as long as the version number always goes up, it doesn t matter. I don t see any reason to change though (for reasons others
                      Message 10 of 30 , May 31 5:11 PM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        On Friday, May 31, 2013 04:56:11 PM Wietse Venema wrote:
                        > After the confusion that Postfix 2.10 is not Postfix 2.1, maybe it
                        > is time to change the release numbering scheme.
                        >
                        > We could to the Linux thing where 2.mumble was followed by 3.mumble.
                        >
                        > or we could do it like Sun. After releasing Solaris 2.0 .. 2.6,
                        > they changed the numbering scheme with Solaris 7 which was released
                        > way back in 1998. Nowadays, many software distributions change the
                        > major release number frequently, if not every time.
                        >
                        > If we were to change the release numbering scheme like this with
                        > Postfix then we would immediately be free from the pain of getting
                        > sites to adopt Postfix 3.0, because they would no longer expect the
                        > pain of transitioning from Python 2->3, from perl 5->6 and the like.
                        > The next Postfix release would be 11.0, so 3.x would never happen.

                        From a packaging perspective, as long as the version number always goes up, it
                        doesn't matter. I don't see any reason to change though (for reasons others
                        have mentioned that I won't bother repeating).

                        Scott K
                      • Bryan Irvine
                        ... I ve always found the OpenBSD method the easiest. after 2.9 comes 3.0 then 3.1....3.9 then 4.0.
                        Message 11 of 30 , May 31 5:33 PM
                        • 0 Attachment



                          On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Wietse Venema <wietse@...> wrote:
                          After the confusion that Postfix 2.10 is not Postfix 2.1, maybe it
                          is time to change the release numbering scheme.

                          We could to the Linux thing where 2.mumble was followed by 3.mumble.

                          or we could do it like Sun. After releasing Solaris 2.0 .. 2.6,
                          they changed the numbering scheme with Solaris 7 which was released
                          way back in 1998. Nowadays, many software distributions change the
                          major release number frequently, if not every time.

                          If we were to change the release numbering scheme like this with
                          Postfix then we would immediately be free from the pain of getting
                          sites to adopt Postfix 3.0, because they would no longer expect the
                          pain of transitioning from Python 2->3, from perl 5->6 and the like.
                          The next Postfix release would be 11.0, so 3.x would never happen.

                                  Wietse


                          I've always found the OpenBSD method the easiest. after 2.9 comes 3.0 then 3.1....3.9 then 4.0.


                        • Christoph Anton Mitterer
                          ... Guess that depends on how one interprets version numbers .... Is it a plain number? Then the model as also used by OpenBSD makes sense as 3.1 == 3.10 But
                          Message 12 of 30 , May 31 5:51 PM
                          • 0 Attachment
                            On Fri, 2013-05-31 at 17:33 -0700, Bryan Irvine wrote:
                            > I've always found the OpenBSD method the easiest. after 2.9 comes 3.0 then
                            > 3.1....3.9 then 4.0.
                            Guess that depends on how one interprets version "numbers"....

                            Is it a plain number? Then the model as also used by OpenBSD makes sense
                            as 3.1 == 3.10
                            But OTOH, why then using fraction numbers at all, instead of simply
                            counting 1, 2, 3.... ?

                            If you interpret some semantics into the version string, then the "." is
                            just the separator between distinct numbers.


                            Cheers,
                            Chris
                          • Peter
                            ... I would take the confusion with a grain of salt, and I think that changing the numbering scheme will generate even more confusion. I tend to agree that the
                            Message 13 of 30 , May 31 6:32 PM
                            • 0 Attachment
                              On 06/01/2013 08:56 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
                              > After the confusion that Postfix 2.10 is not Postfix 2.1, maybe it
                              > is time to change the release numbering scheme.

                              I would take the confusion with a grain of salt, and I think that
                              changing the numbering scheme will generate even more confusion.

                              I tend to agree that the major number should only be incremented with a
                              major code cleanup / backwards compatibility change, etc, but the thing
                              is that postfix doesn't seem to need one and I personally can't foresee
                              such a major change anytime in the near future because postfix is very
                              well maintained already, so this tends to translate into "we're going to
                              have 2 forever", which is not such a good thing, imo. It gets more
                              confusing when we get to versions such as 2.26, and later on down the
                              road 2.56, and so it becomes harder to separate one version from the next.

                              So what I would suggest instead is to relax the standard for a major
                              version change a bit so that a major new feature would also be cause for
                              a major version change. Such an opportunity was recently missed with
                              the introduction of postscreen in version 2.8.


                              Peter
                            • Mike.
                              ... ============= In 20/20 hindsight, perhaps Postfix 2.1 should have been Postfix 2.01, allowing 100 minor versions before the major version was forced to
                              Message 14 of 30 , May 31 7:15 PM
                              • 0 Attachment
                                On 5/31/2013 at 4:56 PM wietse@... wrote:

                                |After the confusion that Postfix 2.10 is not Postfix 2.1,
                                =============


                                In 20/20 hindsight, perhaps Postfix 2.1 should have been Postfix 2.01,
                                allowing 100 minor versions before the major version was forced to
                                change.

                                I have a similar problem on my TV. The Cable Company give me channels
                                12.1 and 12.100, when they really mean 12.001 and 12.100.


                                Going forward, I would prefer a major.minor.patch type of numbering
                                sequence, with leading zeros as appropriate in the minor and patch
                                numbers.

                                I will also state that regardless of the numbering paradigm you decide
                                upon, I will continue to use and learn from the Postfix software and
                                community.

                                Thanks!
                              • Jim Wright
                                ... If they can t figure it out, they shouldn t be running a mail server. There is nothing wrong with the version numbering.
                                Message 15 of 30 , May 31 8:23 PM
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  On May 31, 2013, at 3:56 PM, wietse@... (Wietse Venema) wrote:

                                  > After the confusion that Postfix 2.10 is not Postfix 2.1, maybe it is time to change the release numbering scheme.

                                  If they can't figure it out, they shouldn't be running a mail server. There is nothing wrong with the version numbering.
                                • Mike.
                                  ... is ... ============= I cannot disagree with the former. The latter, however, maybe there is an area for improvement with the current numbering sequence.
                                  Message 16 of 30 , May 31 8:30 PM
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    On 5/31/2013 at 10:23 PM Jim Wright wrote:

                                    |On May 31, 2013, at 3:56 PM, wietse@... (Wietse Venema)
                                    wrote:
                                    |
                                    |> After the confusion that Postfix 2.10 is not Postfix 2.1, maybe it
                                    is
                                    |time to change the release numbering scheme.
                                    |
                                    |If they can't figure it out, they shouldn't be running a mail server.
                                    |There is nothing wrong with the version numbering.
                                    =============

                                    I cannot disagree with the former.

                                    The latter, however, maybe there is an area for improvement with the
                                    current numbering sequence. Discussion on the topic is, imo, good.
                                  • David Benfell
                                    ... Hash: SHA1 ... Once upon a time, possibly in another galaxy, it would have been 2.01 rather than 2.1. I m not advocating one way or the other on this, but
                                    Message 17 of 30 , May 31 9:03 PM
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
                                      Hash: SHA1

                                      On 05/31/2013 08:30 PM, Mike. wrote:
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > On 5/31/2013 at 10:23 PM Jim Wright wrote:
                                      >
                                      > |On May 31, 2013, at 3:56 PM, wietse@... (Wietse Venema)
                                      > wrote: | |> After the confusion that Postfix 2.10 is not Postfix
                                      > 2.1, maybe it is |time to change the release numbering scheme. |
                                      > |If they can't figure it out, they shouldn't be running a mail
                                      > server. |There is nothing wrong with the version numbering.
                                      > =============
                                      >
                                      > I cannot disagree with the former.
                                      >
                                      Once upon a time, possibly in another galaxy, it would have been 2.01
                                      rather than 2.1. I'm not advocating one way or the other on this, but
                                      I would be a little slower to declare that "if they can't figure it
                                      out, they shouldn't be running a mail server."

                                      - --
                                      David Benfell / benfell@...
                                      Please see https://parts-unknown.org/node/2 for GnuPG information (or
                                      the attachment you don't understand)

                                      - --
                                      David Benfell / benfell@...
                                      Please see https://parts-unknown.org/node/2 for GnuPG information (or
                                      the attachment you don't understand)
                                      -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
                                      Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (GNU/Linux)
                                      Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

                                      iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJRqXKlAAoJELJhbl/uPb4SQyYP/2FDNh/5TKrEjq1rt7nG4mqL
                                      FvKSOTaESI/yoGTkMnQlyWgVkmhSpH4wHQw/JkWkD0mtY0V45S6JmbrHjd04vU3J
                                      lyBWpmCQ+dkpIXzAJG7YBUj+gOFiTbs9OYOTTbAWqVh2rGXGAjQlK0RI6vlh8U0V
                                      YDaiu524TvG7Gb0RaX/z6F+y986SZdafgErDVC/uhVVZW0bE8eaSCzUn4jWKHuR6
                                      bBGq9KO9lexFxdPdYzylTeqqdfuXzrA+RcxVlWwzBYjVScuF0mfmnNpYRCksj5Bs
                                      IpGRdrH13YXLZM6I7d7h0Zsg1cW7qU1mfCnbsP+ymwJsdYC/+GcpBnAQmk0RM5FJ
                                      92kIouUBqWRcncCCysa9J7BA8MiJ9ZBmmg3SnNWUzYP5DOJ9KDuO2dmtXQWds1VY
                                      BAe4oQ9sIEyCVRcLtuSsqhF5IQsFx+3eY7pnWUJp/1Uc3q+OMKM7tiPDDPycmew+
                                      y7zsxFcXmt+8y6mkvHNqLDV/xxTcbPmMglqxdfEhrLq5eg58PL6+S2CyNfusbQkx
                                      ep8O8Kx2Tee9GD9e6f8MU5qD8q+bjQAECUHyVNQJnzFKX8ekoFmKhURwTkcjRy/Y
                                      R6QHbXwx5uHJsYhmUGCbzNMscPTOBYql2TpOc/3DHYsifs+PCQ8LeB/bEfbIUVgz
                                      4E5QiLdH5RgcuU7mHE2M
                                      =wWs2
                                      -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
                                    • Titanus Eramius
                                      Fri, 31 May 2013 16:56:11 -0400 (EDT) skrev wietse@porcupine.org ... I think it would be ill advised to do so, since the current scheme conforms to history,
                                      Message 18 of 30 , Jun 1, 2013
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Fri, 31 May 2013 16:56:11 -0400 (EDT) skrev wietse@...
                                        (Wietse Venema):

                                        > After the confusion that Postfix 2.10 is not Postfix 2.1, maybe it
                                        > is time to change the release numbering scheme.
                                        ...
                                        >
                                        > Wietse

                                        I think it would be ill advised to do so, since the current scheme
                                        conforms to history, and therefore what one might expect from version
                                        numbers.

                                        If one knows history, that is.

                                        Cheers, Titanus
                                      • Rob Sterenborg (lists)
                                        ... Wherever I went to school, I cannot remember I was ever taught that 1 equals 10: not decimal, binary, hexadecimal, ... So, personally I find it strange why
                                        Message 19 of 30 , Jun 1, 2013
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          On 01-06-13 04:15, Mike. wrote:
                                          > On 5/31/2013 at 4:56 PM wietse@... wrote:
                                          >
                                          > |After the confusion that Postfix 2.10 is not Postfix 2.1,
                                          > =============
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > In 20/20 hindsight, perhaps Postfix 2.1 should have been Postfix 2.01,
                                          > allowing 100 minor versions before the major version was forced to
                                          > change.

                                          Wherever I went to school, I cannot remember I was ever taught that 1
                                          equals 10: not decimal, binary, hexadecimal, ... So, personally I find
                                          it strange why anyone would think so.

                                          A version 'number' is not a decimal; it's a numerical code that tells
                                          the user what the version of the software (s)he is using. Every number
                                          between the dots stands on it's own, having just this relationship:
                                          - they are read from left to right,
                                          - increments go from the individual right to left numbers (first
                                          patchlevel, then minor version, then major version increments),
                                          - the individual numbers always increment, never decrement.

                                          To me it seems quite easy to figure out what the latest version is.

                                          +1 for keeping the current version scheme intact.


                                          --
                                          Rob
                                        • Charles Marcus
                                          ... So maybe the simplest solution that would have the least impact is to use all three point release numbers, even for the first iteration. Ie, for new minor
                                          Message 20 of 30 , Jun 1, 2013
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            On 2013-06-01 7:35 AM, Rob Sterenborg (lists) <lists@...> wrote:
                                            > Wherever I went to school, I cannot remember I was ever taught that 1
                                            > equals 10: not decimal, binary, hexadecimal, ... So, personally I find
                                            > it strange why anyone would think so.
                                            >
                                            > A version 'number' is not a decimal; it's a numerical code that tells
                                            > the user what the version of the software (s)he is using.

                                            So maybe the simplest solution that would have the least impact is to
                                            use all three point release numbers, even for the first iteration.

                                            Ie, for new minor releases, like 2.10, instead of just calling it 2.10,
                                            call it 2.10.0.

                                            That said, while I really hate the new 'fast release' models for Firefox
                                            (started by Chrome I guess), I also disagree that an increment of the
                                            major version number should be relegated only to 'complete rewrites', or
                                            such massive changes that the new version doesn't really resemble the
                                            old version.

                                            In my opinion, the addition of a new feature like postscreen is
                                            sufficient to warrant incrementing the major version number.

                                            If you *never* increment it, what purpose does it serve? May as well
                                            leave it off as Wietse said, basically resulting in a new 'fast release'
                                            scheme like Firefox/Chrome...

                                            --

                                            Best regards,

                                            Charles
                                          • Matthias Andree
                                            ... Glad you are asking. No, it is not the time to join in brainless version numbering races. Tell people those are independent numbers with a particular
                                            Message 21 of 30 , Jun 1, 2013
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              Am 31.05.2013 22:56, schrieb Wietse Venema:
                                              > After the confusion that Postfix 2.10 is not Postfix 2.1, maybe it
                                              > is time to change the release numbering scheme.

                                              Glad you are asking.

                                              No, it is not the time to join in brainless version numbering races.

                                              Tell people those are independent numbers with a particular meaning
                                              (major, minor, patch/bugfixlevel), link to a "how to read Postfix's
                                              version numbers" document from 1. the download page, 2. from the FAQ's
                                              front page, 3. from Postfix's web front page, and, as proposed in this
                                              thread, 4. from postconf and possibly 5. postfix manual pages; and if
                                              that does not suffice, consider it an intelligence test as to who should
                                              _not_ be operating a mail transfer agent because he or she cannot handle
                                              the complexities.

                                              Possibly add "2.1 -> 2.2 -> 2.9 -> 2.10 -> future 2.11" figure so
                                              people see quickly that 2.10 was newer than 2.9 and 2.1...

                                              > or we could do it like Sun. After releasing Solaris 2.0 .. 2.6,
                                              > they changed the numbering scheme with Solaris 7 which was released
                                              > way back in 1998. Nowadays, many software distributions change the
                                              > major release number frequently, if not every time.

                                              Is there a _technical_ reason (undereducation on a part of the users
                                              does not count) to follow Google's useless race of versioning that makes
                                              major version numbers pointless (oh, and Google does have four-component
                                              version numbering..., and Mozilla stuck to three-component in spite of
                                              joining the race)?

                                              Why sacrifice the semantic value of "if major version changes, check for
                                              major incompatibilities"? What do we gain?

                                              > If we were to change the release numbering scheme like this with
                                              > Postfix then we would immediately be free from the pain of getting
                                              > sites to adopt Postfix 3.0, because they would no longer expect the
                                              > pain of transitioning from Python 2->3, from perl 5->6 and the like.
                                              > The next Postfix release would be 11.0, so 3.x would never happen.

                                              My vote is "keep the versioning system", and explain it. Else it will
                                              take ages until distributions adopt the new system, causing two or so
                                              years of even more confusion.

                                              And I must say that I have always appreciated the excellent
                                              compatibility and release documentation Postfix has provided - thanks
                                              for your keeping this up for ever since the first formal release,
                                              I value such consistency over changing version numbering schemes to
                                              accommodate a few inattentive people.
                                            • Len Conrad
                                              ... don t dumb postfix down. keep the current numbering style. Len
                                              Message 22 of 30 , Jun 1, 2013
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                At 07:18 AM 6/1/2013, you wrote:
                                                >Am 31.05.2013 22:56, schrieb Wietse Venema:
                                                >> After the confusion that Postfix 2.10 is not Postfix 2.1, maybe it
                                                >> is time to change the release numbering scheme.

                                                don't dumb postfix down. keep the current numbering style.

                                                Len
                                              • Patrick Ben Koetter
                                                ... Major.minor.patch is a well known scheme and its complexity isn t for fun, but because it has useful meaning to those who get to see the release number -
                                                Message 23 of 30 , Jun 1, 2013
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  * Wietse Venema <postfix-users@...>:
                                                  > After the confusion that Postfix 2.10 is not Postfix 2.1, maybe it
                                                  > is time to change the release numbering scheme.

                                                  Major.minor.patch is a well known scheme and its complexity isn't for fun,
                                                  but because it has useful meaning to those who get to see the release number -
                                                  admins. I'd keep it as it is.

                                                  I wouldn't go as far to say that if they don't understand major.minor.patch
                                                  they shouldn't be using the software at all. Reminding how I started and all
                                                  the stuff I had to learn, I'd find that pose rather arrogant and not helpful
                                                  in becoming a better admin.

                                                  If there are some, who have trouble finding the right version maybe some
                                                  additional words of explanation or stylistic enhancements (the fancy stuff...)
                                                  will do the trick.

                                                  p@rick

                                                  --
                                                  [*] sys4 AG

                                                  http://sys4.de, +49 (89) 30 90 46 64
                                                  Franziskanerstraße 15, 81669 München

                                                  Sitz der Gesellschaft: München, Amtsgericht München: HRB 199263
                                                  Vorstand: Patrick Ben Koetter, Axel von der Ohe, Marc Schiffbauer
                                                  Aufsichtsratsvorsitzender: Florian Kirstein
                                                • Linux Addict
                                                  After 2.9, it should have been 3, not 2.10 ;) Sent from my iPhone
                                                  Message 24 of 30 , Jun 1, 2013
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    After 2.9, it should have been 3, not 2.10 ;)



                                                    Sent from my iPhone

                                                    On Jun 1, 2013, at 8:33 AM, Len Conrad <LConrad@...> wrote:

                                                    > At 07:18 AM 6/1/2013, you wrote:
                                                    >> Am 31.05.2013 22:56, schrieb Wietse Venema:
                                                    >>> After the confusion that Postfix 2.10 is not Postfix 2.1, maybe it
                                                    >>> is time to change the release numbering scheme.
                                                    >
                                                    > don't dumb postfix down. keep the current numbering style.
                                                    >
                                                    > Len
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                  • Ove Evensen
                                                    I would say keep it as normal.  2.9 and then 2.10. If you can not see the difference between 2.1 and 2.10 you should not use postfix.  Period!  Regards Ove
                                                    Message 25 of 30 , Jun 1, 2013
                                                    • 0 Attachment
                                                      I would say keep it as normal.  2.9 and then 2.10.
                                                      If you can not see the difference between 2.1 and 2.10 you should not use postfix.  Period! 




                                                      Regards
                                                      Ove Jk. Evensen



                                                      -------- Original message --------
                                                      From: Linux Addict <linuxaddict7@...>
                                                      Date: 01/06/2013 14:02 (GMT+00:00)
                                                      To: Len Conrad <LConrad@...>
                                                      Cc: postfix-users@...
                                                      Subject: Re: Is it time for 2.x.y -> x.y?


                                                      After 2.9, it should have been 3, not 2.10 ;)



                                                      Sent from my iPhone

                                                      On Jun 1, 2013, at 8:33 AM, Len Conrad <LConrad@...> wrote:

                                                      > At 07:18 AM 6/1/2013, you wrote:
                                                      >> Am 31.05.2013 22:56, schrieb Wietse Venema:
                                                      >>> After the confusion that Postfix 2.10 is not Postfix 2.1, maybe it
                                                      >>> is time to change the release numbering scheme.
                                                      >
                                                      > don't dumb postfix down.  keep the current numbering style.
                                                      >
                                                      > Len
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                    • Jeroen Geilman
                                                      ... The list address is postfix-users@postfix.org. Please don t mess with my message sorting filters :) -- J.
                                                      Message 26 of 30 , Jun 1, 2013
                                                      • 0 Attachment
                                                        On 06/01/2013 03:42 PM, Ove Evensen wrote:
                                                        I would say keep it as normal.  2.9 and then 2.10.
                                                        If you can not see the difference between 2.1 and 2.10 you should not use postfix.  Period! 




                                                        Regards
                                                        Ove Jk. Evensen



                                                        -------- Original message --------
                                                        From: Linux Addict <linuxaddict7@...>
                                                        Date: 01/06/2013 14:02 (GMT+00:00)
                                                        To: Len Conrad <LConrad@...>
                                                        Cc: postfix-users@...

                                                        The list address is postfix-users@....
                                                        Please don't mess with my message sorting filters :)

                                                        -- 
                                                        J.
                                                        
                                                      • Matthias Andree
                                                        ... I don t mean understand , but understand when it has been explained . ... I don t object to better markup, explanations, or such, but I see no reason to
                                                        Message 27 of 30 , Jun 1, 2013
                                                        • 0 Attachment
                                                          Am 01.06.2013 14:34, schrieb Patrick Ben Koetter:

                                                          > I wouldn't go as far to say that if they don't understand major.minor.patch
                                                          > they shouldn't be using the software at all. Reminding how I started and all
                                                          > the stuff I had to learn, I'd find that pose rather arrogant and not helpful
                                                          > in becoming a better admin.

                                                          I don't mean "understand", but "understand when it has been explained".

                                                          > If there are some, who have trouble finding the right version maybe some
                                                          > additional words of explanation or stylistic enhancements (the fancy stuff...)
                                                          > will do the trick.

                                                          I don't object to better markup, explanations, or such, but I see no
                                                          reason to change the versioning.
                                                        • Victor d'Agostino
                                                          Gentlemen, Don t feed the troll ! Regards, Victor ... Gentlemen, Don t feed the troll ! Regards, Victor Le 01/06/2013 15:42, Ove Evensen a écrit : I would
                                                          Message 28 of 30 , Jun 1, 2013
                                                          • 0 Attachment
                                                            Gentlemen,

                                                            Don't feed the troll !

                                                            Regards,
                                                            Victor

                                                            Le 01/06/2013 15:42, Ove Evensen a écrit :
                                                            I would say keep it as normal.  2.9 and then 2.10.
                                                            If you can not see the difference between 2.1 and 2.10 you should not use postfix.  Period! 




                                                            Regards
                                                            Ove Jk. Evensen



                                                            -------- Original message --------
                                                            From: Linux Addict <linuxaddict7@...>
                                                            Date: 01/06/2013 14:02 (GMT+00:00)
                                                            To: Len Conrad <LConrad@...>
                                                            Cc: postfix-users@...
                                                            Subject: Re: Is it time for 2.x.y -> x.y?


                                                            After 2.9, it should have been 3, not 2.10 ;)



                                                            Sent from my iPhone

                                                            On Jun 1, 2013, at 8:33 AM, Len Conrad <LConrad@...> wrote:

                                                            > At 07:18 AM 6/1/2013, you wrote:
                                                            >> Am 31.05.2013 22:56, schrieb Wietse Venema:
                                                            >>> After the confusion that Postfix 2.10 is not Postfix 2.1, maybe it
                                                            >>> is time to change the release numbering scheme.
                                                            >
                                                            > don't dumb postfix down.  keep the current numbering style.
                                                            >
                                                            > Len
                                                            >
                                                            >
                                                            >

                                                          • Sebastian Wiesinger
                                                            ... Okay, perhaps this is a European view, but I never confused Postfix 2.1 with 2.10. Perhaps because here it would be 2,1 and 2,10 if they were real numbers?
                                                            Message 29 of 30 , Jun 3, 2013
                                                            • 0 Attachment
                                                              * Wietse Venema <wietse@...> [2013-05-31 22:57]:
                                                              > After the confusion that Postfix 2.10 is not Postfix 2.1, maybe it
                                                              > is time to change the release numbering scheme.

                                                              Okay, perhaps this is a European view, but I never confused Postfix
                                                              2.1 with 2.10. Perhaps because here it would be 2,1 and 2,10 if they
                                                              were real numbers? Nevertheless I'm under the impression that most
                                                              people know that version numbers are not "real" numbers.

                                                              Also I don't like the whole "major version" inflation done by most
                                                              other products today.

                                                              I would suggest:

                                                              2.10.0
                                                              2.10.1 <- Bugfixes
                                                              2.11.0 <- New feature(s)
                                                              2.11.1 <- Bugfixes
                                                              ...
                                                              3.0.0 <- MAJOR changes

                                                              Fix things in the point releases, add new features in the minor number
                                                              releases. Change to 3.x for major changes which are not backwards
                                                              compatible.

                                                              Regards

                                                              Sebastian

                                                              --
                                                              GPG Key: 0x93A0B9CE (F4F6 B1A3 866B 26E9 450A 9D82 58A2 D94A 93A0 B9CE)
                                                              'Are you Death?' ... IT'S THE SCYTHE, ISN'T IT? PEOPLE ALWAYS NOTICE THE SCYTHE.
                                                              -- Terry Pratchett, The Fifth Elephant
                                                            • francis picabia
                                                              ... A version number change based loosely on the concept of increment version on anniversary ? ... The jump would be mimicry of a company having a Marketing
                                                              Message 30 of 30 , Jun 5, 2013
                                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                                On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 5:56 PM, Wietse Venema <wietse@...> wrote:
                                                                > After the confusion that Postfix 2.10 is not Postfix 2.1, maybe it
                                                                > is time to change the release numbering scheme.
                                                                >
                                                                > We could to the Linux thing where 2.mumble was followed by 3.mumble.

                                                                A version number change based loosely on the concept of
                                                                "increment version on anniversary"?

                                                                > or we could do it like Sun. After releasing Solaris 2.0 .. 2.6,
                                                                > they changed the numbering scheme with Solaris 7 which was released
                                                                > way back in 1998. Nowadays, many software distributions change the
                                                                > major release number frequently, if not every time.

                                                                The jump would be mimicry of a company having a Marketing Department.

                                                                I'd think there would be even more questions of: "where is version 3 to 10".

                                                                If 2.10 would always be followed by (.10 as in ten) in all docs
                                                                it might help. Possibly add a release date beside it.

                                                                I'm a traditionalist and associate major version changes with
                                                                "I really better read the release notes". Major version changes
                                                                that rattle me for no reason are irksome.
                                                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.