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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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.