On Wednesday 17 May 2017, Ruediger Meier wrote:
> 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.
Note we could still continue with 2 digit version numbers as well
without jumping to v31:
v2.30
v2.30.1
v2.30.2
v3.0
v3.1
v3.2
v4.0
[...]
> 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
--
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
