On Wednesday 17 May 2017, Karel Zak wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Sami has good point on IRC... do we really want to continue with the
> current versioning schema? Now we use:
>
> v2.xx[.y]
>
> I don't expect v3 or v4, so the prefix v2 does not provide any
> information... and the 'xx' ('30' now) is already large number.
>
> Suggestions:
>
> 1) do nothing; nobody cares and v2.31 looks good
>
> 2) remove '2' from the version:
>
> major release: v31
> update release: v31.1
I don't see why v31 would be better than v3? I always appreciate if
there are no gaps in version numbers. So v31 should be released after
v30 ;)
>
> 3) <your suggestion>?
>
I would prefer either v2.31 or v3.1.
v3 just to avoid big numbers. But could also be a hint regarding the
minimum supported/tested kernel version. I believe that we have already
a few incompatibilities for kernel <2.6.32. Maybe we could cleanup our
code, only supporting kernel >=3.1.
cu,
Rudi
> Note that for v2.30 is to late to do any change in version numbers
> (we need changes in our libraries and I have to update some my
> scripts).
>
> Karel
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe util-linux" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
