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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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.