From: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 16:28:39 GMT
Subject: Re: [kernel.org users] [RFD] On deprecating "git-foo" for builtins
Message-ID: <94a0d4530808290928w3b1decd4o2e77349d793ffff0@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20080829162420.GB20629@yugib.highrise.ca>

On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 7:24 PM, Aidan Van Dyk <aidan@highrise.ca> wrote:
> * Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> [080829 12:11]:
>> On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 6:24 PM, Aidan Van Dyk <aidan@highrise.ca> wrote:
>> > * Perry Wagle <wagle@cs.indiana.edu> [080801 00:00]:
>> >> Jeff King has convinced me that it's perfectly legitimate to introduce
>> >> non-upward compatibilities in minor version releases of "young"
>> >> software.
>> >
>> > This is the gist of the problem.  You keep hammering about a
>> > "non-upwards compatibilities in minor version releases", yet you have
>> > *not* pointed out one such in-compatibility in a minor version release..
>> >
>> > Remember, in git, 1.6 is a "major version" release, with release notes, etc.
>> > 1.5.X is a "minor version" release.
>> > 1.5.X.Y is a "patch" release.
>>
>> What is X (2.0)?
>
> X would be a digit, like 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, or 9, as in the git
> 1.5 releases:
>        1.5.0
>        1.5.1
>        1.5.2
>        1.5.3
>        1.5.4
>        1.5.4
>        1.5.6
>
> And now also:
>        1.6.0, being the first of the 1.6 releases...

I meant 'X.0.0', if 1.X is major, what is X.0? Huge?

-- 
Felipe Contreras