Re: git version numbers

From: Tim Mazid <timmazid@hotmail.com>
Date: May 30, 2011, 06:06 UTC
Message-ID: <20110530060653.GB3723@Imperial-SD-Longsword>
In-Reply-To: <20110530033428.GB27691@sigill.intra.peff.net>

On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 11:34:28PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:

Show 26 quoted lines

> In "git w.x.y.z", the decoding is:
> 
>   w: not likely to change short of a complete rewrite or something that
>      is quite incompatible (i.e., will probably remain "1" for quite a
>      while)
> 
>   x: when this jumps, it is a "big" version change, meaning there may be
>      some minor incompatibilities or new ways of doing things. For
>      example, 1.5.0 introduced a lot of usability changes and the
>      separate-remotes layout became the default. In 1.6.0, we stopped
>      shipping "git-*" in the PATH, and started using some new packfile
>      features by default. And so on. If you want to know more, see
>      Documentation/RelNotes/1.?.0.txt.
> 
>   y: when this jumps, it is a new release cut from master that does not
>      have any "big" changes as above. There will be new features and
>      some bugfixes. See RelNotes/1.7.?.txt for examples of what gets
>      included.
> 
>   z: when this jumps, it is a bugfix release based on the feature
>      release w.x.y. See RelNotes/1.7.5.?.txt for examples.
> 
> Getting more to your actual question, I don't know that we ever use any
> particular name like "major" or "minor" for any of them. We do tend to
> use the terms "feature release" for w.x.y releases and "bugfix release"
> for w.x.y.z.

Ah; I see. The system I was considering was essentially identical, except instead of calling it w.x.y.z, they are actually named them in the form of <super-major>.<major>.<minor>-<optional revision>. As for the decoding, it's identical: super-major is an almost never change number; major is when there's something "big"; minor is when there's a "release", but it's not "big"; and revision for a bugfix.

Well, thanks for the clarification.

While we're on the topic, though, when I was scouring the web for information, I found a post [1] which spoke against the traditional numbering versioning system. Personally, I disagree and find the "dating" version cumbersome and uninformative. So, I was wondering what your [2] take on this is.

Tim.

[1] http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2007/02/whats-in-a-version-number-anyway.html [2] By "you", I mean anybody in the list, of course.

-- 
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\ www.asciiribbon.org   - against proprietary attachments