git/list[1] front-page[2] threads[3] people[4] search[5] about
 

Re: Short-term plans for the post 2.9 cycle

From
Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date
Jun 24, 2016, 15:48 UTC
Message-ID
<20160624154800.GB2448@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To
<xmqqh9covlkb.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 03:52:04PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Here are the list of topics that are in the "private edition" I use
> for every day work, grouped by where they sit in the the near-term
> plan of merging them up to 'next' and then to 'master'.

By the way, I wondered if you had thoughts on the number of the upcoming version. We are looking at v2.10 in the current scheme. It was at the v1.9/v1.10 boundary that we jumped to v2.0 last time.

Certainly it is nice to avoid bumping into double digits (if only to prevent bugs created by lexical sorting). But it feels rather quick to be jumping to v3.0. And indeed it is much quicker, as the v1.x series had an extra level of versioning which meant that the second-biggest number advanced ten times more slowly.

I know some people's opinion is that versions do not matter, are just numbers, etc, but I am not sure I agree. If you have dots in your version number, then bumping the one before the first dot seems like a bigger change than usual, and I think we should reserve it for a moment where we have bigger changes in the code.

And I am not at all sure that we have given much thought to what such changes would be, or that such things would be ready in this cycle. Off the top of my head, the repository-format bump for pluggable ref backends, and protocol v2 support seem like possible candidates. It's not a flag day for either, of course; we'll build in all of the usual backwards-compatibility flags. But it's convenient for users to remember that "3.0" is the minimum to support a new slate of backwards-incompatible features.

So my inclination is that the next version is simply v2.10. And maybe you thought of all of this already, and that's why you didn't even bother mentioning it. :) I'm just curious to hear any thoughts on the matter.

-Peff
Previous: Junio C HamanoNext: Junio C Hamano
Message 4 of 6 in “Short-term plans for the post 2.9 cycle”
  1. Junio C HamanoJun 19, 2016
  2. Stefan BellerJun 20, 2016
  3. Junio C HamanoJun 20, 2016
  4. Jeff KingJun 24, 2016
  5. Junio C HamanoJun 24, 2016
  6. Jeff KingJun 24, 2016

Read the whole thread, see it on lore, or plain text.

$ cat FOOTERMessages come from the public archive at lore.kernel.org/git, fetched every hour. The front page is chosen and written each morning by an AI editor and can be wrong; the threads themselves are the record. About and API. For agents: an MCP server at https://gitlist.dev/mcp, and any thread, story or person page as Markdown by adding .md to its URL (or sending Accept: text/markdown). Details in /llms.txt.