[Mesa-dev] Move mesa version scheme to a more common style ?

[Ilia Mirkin]

On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 6:52 AM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 14 November 2014 19:50, Ilia Mirkin <imirkin at alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hello all,
>>>
>>> This is an old question that I had laying around - why doesn't mesa use
>>> a more conventional numbering for the development/rc releases ?
>>>
>>> Eg.
>>> mesa 10.4.0-rc1 -> 10.3.99.901
>>> mesa 10.4.0-rc2 -> 10.3.99.902
>>> ...
>>> mesa 10.4.0     -> 10.4.0
>>
>> Something else that occurred to me -- you want to still make a stable
>> 10.3 release, so 10.3.x will come out after 10.3.99.901? Seems
>> confusing...
>>
> Not sure I fully understand what the confusing part it is. Can you elaborate ?
>
> Perhaps the following examples should clear any of your confusion:
>
> 10.3 branch:
> 10.3.0
> 10.3.0.901 (10.3.1-rc1)
> 10.3.0.902 (10.3.1-rc2) // if needed
> 10.3.1
> 10.3.1.901 (10.3.2-rc1)
> 10.3.1.902 (10.3.2-rc2) // if needed
> ... you get the idea.
>
> At the same time
>
> Master branch:
> 10.3.99 (10.4-dev)

So you make this release. One might *think* that the latest 10.3.x is
10.3.99 then. But it's not. Since *after* this release, you'll put out
a 10.3.2, which will have fixes that 10.3.99 doesn't have. It makes
for a non-linear version number situation which IMO is rather
confusing. With the current version numbering scheme that ~every
project uses except X.org, it's very clear what the latest release is
in a particular line. Also, 10.3.99 has no connection to 10.3 at all,
it is in fact much closer to 10.4. This is why it makes sense to call
it 10.4-rc1 and not 10.3.x.

  -ilia