I see.
It will be 2.year.n then unless there are objections.
Marek
On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 12:47 PM Dylan Baker wrote:
> Quoting Eric Engestrom (2019-10-11 06:10:58)
> > On Thursday, 2019-10-10 16:14:47 -0400, Marek Olšák wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I expect to make a new libdrm release soon.
Quoting Eric Engestrom (2019-10-11 06:10:58)
> On Thursday, 2019-10-10 16:14:47 -0400, Marek Olšák wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I expect to make a new libdrm release soon. Any objections to changing the
> > versioning scheme?
> >
> > Current: 2.4.n
> > n = starts from 0, incremented per release
> >
>
On Fri., Oct. 11, 2019, 02:02 Dave Airlie, wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Oct 2019 at 14:56, Rob Clark wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 7:46 PM Jason Ekstrand
> wrote:
> > >
> > > On October 10, 2019 15:15:29 Marek Olšák wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Hi,
> > >>
> > >> I expect to make a new libdrm release s
On Thursday, 2019-10-10 16:14:47 -0400, Marek Olšák wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I expect to make a new libdrm release soon. Any objections to changing the
> versioning scheme?
>
> Current: 2.4.n
> n = starts from 0, incremented per release
>
> New proposals:
> year.n.0 (19.0.0)
> year.month.n (19.10.0)
> y
LGTM
It's easier to figure how old is a release with year based versioning.
On 10/10/19 10:14 PM, Marek Olšák wrote:
Hi,
I expect to make a new libdrm release soon. Any objections to changing
the versioning scheme?
Current: 2.4.n
n = starts from 0, incremented per release
New proposals:
ye