From: Philip Oakley <philipoakley@iee.org>
Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2014 21:03:41 GMT
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] howto/maintain-git.txt: new version numbering scheme
Message-ID: <43FB93CCA3984B8890CA448E9E75E44E@PhilipOakley>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqa9e7bvfv.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>

From: "Junio C Hamano" <gitster@pobox.com>
> "Philip Oakley" <philipoakley@iee.org> writes:
>
>> If we are progressing from V1.9 to V2.0 quickly (one cycle?), which I
>> understand is the plan, then mixing the minor development items 
>> (patch
>> series which progress to master) with the maintenance fixes over the
>> next few months, thus only having 1.9.x releases, sounds reasonable.
>>
>> If there is going to be separate maintenance fixes from the patch 
>> series
>> developments then keeping to the previous 1.9.x.y for maintenance 
>> would
>> be better.
>>
>> Will the new rapid counting continue after V2.0, such that we get to
>> V2.9 -> V3.0 rather more quickly than V1.0 -> V2.0 ?
>>
>> The key discriminator would be to say when V2.0 will be out for 
>> deciding
>> the V1.9 sequence.
>
> I do not quite follow.  The time distance between v1.9 and v2.0
> should not affect anything.  If it is a long road, there may be
> v1.10, v1.11, v1.12, ...

I wasn't sure if you were considering going past either 1.9.9 to 1.9.10, 
and going from 1.9 to 1.10 was something that hadn't occurred to me 
(somewhat of a Doh! moment maybe).


>            before we have v2.0.  If not, v2.0 may
> immediately follow v1.9 as a new feature release.  There may be
> maintenance releases based on v1.9 that does not add any new
> features.
>
> Right now, if you count the maintenance releases, there are
> potentially four kinds of version gaps:
>
> - Between v1.8.5 and v1.8.5.1, there are fixes but no new features;
>
> - Between v1.8.5 and v1.8.6, there are new features but no
>   compatibility worries;
>
> - Between v1.8.6 and v1.9.0, there are new features, no
>   compatibility worries, but somehow the jump is larger than the
>   one between v1.8.5 and v1.8.6; and
>
> - Between v1.9.0 and v2.0.0, there are new features and also
>   compatibility concerns.
>
> Switching to 2-digit scheme and calling the upcoming one v1.9 (and
> the next major one v2.0) was meant to make the naming more flat,

OK I'd buy that flattening approach.

>    as
> the third item in the above list "somehow the jump is larger" does
> not seem to add much value to the end users.  So the logical
> numbering becomes more like this:
>
> - Between v1.9 and v1.9.1, there are fixes but no new features;
>
> - Between v1.9.x and v1.10, there are new features but no
>   compatibility worries;
>
> - Between v1.9.x and v2.0, there are new features and also
>   compatibility concerns.
>
> With a twist, though.  There seem to be many places where at least
> three digits are assumed to exist in our version numbers, so in
> order to make life easier, the updated document says vX.Y (a feature
> release) will identify itself as vX.Y.0

Yes. I'd be happy to support that third 'digit' for the maint releases, 
with zero as the initial release.

Git Gui has a version string checking routine but its regex only needs 
two parts X.Y (we looked into the version string back in $gmane/217189

>
>

Thanks for the clarifications.
Philip.