httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Brian Behlendorf <>
Subject Re: Version Control
Date Tue, 05 Dec 1995 05:41:04 GMT
On Mon, 4 Dec 1995, Alexei Kosut wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Dec 1995, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> > So yeah, 1.0.x will have *no* extra functionality over 1.0.0, likewise 
> > 1.1.x will have no major functionality over 1.1.0, but 1.1.0 will contain 
> > every bugfix from the last release of 1.0.x.
> Wait just one darn minute here. This means that the release of 1.1.0 is 
> the *only* time we're allowed to put in new features? Not only is this an 
> incredibly short period of time (if the wait for 1.0 is any indication), 
> but it gives no chance for bugs to be worked out, if we would like the 
> *.0 released to be relatively bug-free.

No.  That's just not the way that numbering happens in other arenas.  
Check it out - how many people pass up the X.0 version, waiting instead 
for X.1, knowing that in *any* piece of new code there will be bugs and 
problems waiting to get ferreted out by a large user base.  GCC 2.7.0 is 
out, and I'm waiting till 2.7.1 at least before switching over to it.  
Look at Windows 3.1.1... Netscape 1.1...  

> I'd go for something like what the rest of the world does, tack a 
> development number on the end. We have 1.0, bug fixes for that go into 
> 1.0.1, 1.0.2, etc... meanwhile, we work on 1.1b1, 1.1b2, up through 
> 1.1b100 if we like, then release 1.1.0 when we're satisfied its good, and 
> 1.1.1 and 1.1.2, etc are bugfixes for that. Meanwhile we work on 1.2b1, 
> etc...

You basically outlined the same thing I did, but you added "Xbx" 
notation, and I would have expected that to be the case anyways.  Yes, 
1.0 will be as bug free as *we* can make it, but it won't truly be 
de-roached until the mass public has gotten a hold.

What I'm trying to avoid is inconsistancy - say, 1.0.1-1.0.7 is a bug 
fix, but then we add persistant connectins to 1.0.8, and people don't 
pick up on it.

> They can (should) be public betas most of the time. 

Sure, but an announcement goes out only at 1.1.0, 1.2.0, etc.

So, I *think* we're saying the same thing, you just added the notation 
for early beta releases.


--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--  http://www.[hyperreal,organic].com/

View raw message