On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 11:58:01AM +0000, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 04:20:24AM -0700, Andrea Bolognani wrote: > > systemd is in a similar position as us, where they can't really break > > compatibility because too much stuff is built on top, so they just > > use an ever-increasing version number. Simple and effective. Why > > can't we do the same? > > Note systemd is not strictly single digit - their stable releases have > an extra digit. And we could do the same. > Our current version number scheme works fine. If people want to blindly > assume semantics that don't exist & are documented to not exists directly > on our download page, that's not something for us to fix. Alright, I'm clearly the only one who thinks that this is something that could be improved upon, so I'll duly shut up now :) -- Andrea Bolognani / Red Hat / Virtualization
