On Mon, 5 Dec 2016 12:07:25 -0800 Hans Wennborg via lldb-dev <lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Renato Golin <renato.go...@linaro.org> wrote: > > On 5 December 2016 at 19:56, Hans Wennborg <h...@chromium.org> wrote: > >> I'd like to avoid 4.1 because of the potential for confusion about > >> whether it's a major release (as it would have been under the old > >> scheme) or a patch release. > > > > But if the versioning scheme is different, users will have to > > understand what it means anyway. > > > > Until now we had a weird and very unique logic, and we're moving to a > > more sensible logic, because it's similar to what some other projects > > are doing. > > > > I can see as much confusion from 4.0.1 -> 5.0.0 than by having a 4.1 > > that used to be weird before. > > > > After a few releases everything will be clear anyway... I really don't > > want to make the foreseeable future weird again to avoid a potential > > misunderstanding for one or two releases. > > > > Let's just be brutally clear in all release communications and > > hopefully people will understand. > > > > > >> The alternative would be: > >> > >> 3.9.0 > >> 3.9.1 > >> 4.0.0 > >> 4.1.0 <-- Can't tell from the version number what kind of release this is. > >> > > > > No, that has a redundant zero, too. > > > > The alternative is: > > > > 3.9.0 > > 3.9.1 > > 4.0 > > 4.1 > > 5.0 > > 5.1 > > I'm worried that users will, with some reason, think that the 4.1 and > 5.1 releases are the same kind as 2.1 and 3.1 :-/ Just do 4a, 4b, 4c ;-). Everyone will be as confused as possible ;-). -- Best regards, Michał Górny <http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/>
pgp4HL7kkQRBs.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
