On 17 May 2017 at 22:09, Karel Zak <kzak@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 09:07:49PM +0200, Ruediger Meier wrote: >> I'm not talking about making things incompatible just to be incompatible >> but about ugly, outdated ifdefs which probably nobody needs anymore but >> also nobody would touch unless we actively review this. > > This would be better to discuss per patch. I don't think the current > code is affected by many obscure #ifdef and if we have #ifdef then > it's usually to be compatible with some libc, non-linux systems, old > gcc, etc. > > Anyway, it seems the conclusion is to continue with vX.Y.Z :-) So will we get 3.0.0 next and stick with 3.y.z for couple years until numbers grow large? Then v4.y.z and so on. My initial thinking was really as simple as 2.30.0 is a bit large number, and the 2 has not changed for 10 years so maybe it's time to update that. Seeing v31 proposal was interesting, but no. Two number system could also work fine, but there does not seem to be apetite to that. Lets go with concencus and stick with X.Y.Z format. Now when we are talking about versioning - do we get much benefit from rcN series? As far I can tell the project is good shape to release after every single commit. What I don't see is distros using rc series for any users so currently they primarily tell to contributors 'stop sending intrusive crazy stuff for couple weeks, a release is about to happen'. And if that's all these releases do the same could be achieved by sending a maintainer note to maillist informing when is the expected day of next release. In short dropping the -rc's in favour of releasing for real more often is something I would like to see. -- Sami Kerola http://www.iki.fi/kerolasa/ -- 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
