directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Emmanuel Lecharny <>
Subject Re: [Version Numbering scheme] was: Version numbering and roadmap planning
Date Mon, 07 May 2007 06:34:51 GMT
Alan D. Cabrera a écrit :

> On May 5, 2007, at 5:18 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:
>> Ok, I agree with a lot of Chris points. We have to find an easier  
>> way to enumerate versions, and the odd/even scheme does not fit me  a 
>> lot, because the semantic is not very clear. However, I also  think 
>> that Alex is right when it comes to have stable/unstable  revisions 
>> (keep in mind that unstable != buggy, but unstable ==  experimental)
>> We have had a convo with Alex this morning while we were moving to  
>> the airport : what about using the X for each 'stable version ?
>> Like : 1.0.z, 2.0.z, 3.0.z... are stable versions (X.0.z will  
>> *always* be stable versions)
>> Now, for experimental/unstable versions, I suggest to use the Y part :
>> 1.5.z, 2.5.z, ... X.5.z will be experimental versions
>> The idea behind is to express the fact that we are just in the  
>> middle of two stable versions. We won't have 1.6.0, but a 2.0.0. If  
>> we have to add a new feature, or fix a bug, then we switch to the  
>> next Z number : from 1.5.0 to 1.5.1, or from 2.0.0 to 2.0.1
>> To make it clear, we will use the X.Y.Z scheme where :
>> X : major version
>> Y : if 0, then the version is stable, and feature completed. If 5,  
>> then this is an intermediate version
>> Z : used for bug fixes if Y=0, or for new features or bug fixes if  Y=5.
>> 1.5.2 => new features has been added to 1.5.1
>> 2.0.3 => stable version 2, with third delivered set of bug fixes.
>> wdyt ?
> This all sounds a bit abstract to me.  Can you provide some concrete  
> uses cases that provide compelling reasons to have a stable/unstable  
> releases occurring at the same time?  Thanks!

The key word is 'release'. We have had many discussion about what we 
should call a release, and if we should have 'unstable' released at 
all... Tags may be enough.

But on the other side, Alex thinks that the stable/unstable scheme (à la 
Linux) is a good thing.

This is what we are trying to address, so this mail.

Thanks Alan !

> Regards,
> Alan

View raw message