From: Andrew Eikum <aeikum@codeweavers.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 21:28:44 GMT
Subject: Re: What's cooking in git.git (Feb 2014, #04; Wed, 12)
Message-ID: <20140214212844.GE743@foghorn.codeweavers.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqr475h06n.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>

On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 01:08:32PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Andrew Eikum <aeikum@codeweavers.com> writes:
> 
> > My worry is having "2." hang around for another decade or longer. I'd
> > rather see X.0.0 denote a major feature release (currently represented
> > as 1.X.0), with X.Y.0 for minor enhancements and X.Y.Z for bugfix.
> 
> We need three categories: (1) potentially incompatible, (2) feature,
> (3) fixes-only.  We have been doing two levels of features by having
> both second and third numbers and we are flattening by removing the
> second one.
> 
> > It seems reasonable to expect fewer backwards incompatible changes in
> > the future as Git has become more mature. This reduces the utility of
> > reserving X.0.0 for major backwards incompatible changes, especially
> > considering it's already been eight years for the first increment.
> 
> We are not done yet, far from it.  If we can stay at 2.X longer,
> that is a very good thing.
> 

Okay, fair enough. Thanks for explaining :)

Andrew