[Mesa-dev] Proposal of date-based Mesa versioning for 2017

[Jason Ekstrand]

On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 8:57 AM, Marek Olšák <maraeo at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Nicolai Hähnle <nhaehnle at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On 12.12.2016 16:41, Daniel Stone wrote:
> >>
> >> On 12 December 2016 at 15:28, Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov at gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> As mentioned by others - having the second number represent the month
> >>> would be better, afaict.
> >>> Namely: YY.MM.PP. Thus 17.02.01 provides direct and clear feedback that
> >>>  - 2017 release, from the second month (Feb).
> >>>  - first bugfix release.
> >>
> >>
> >> Not being funny, but does this mean that 17.02 bugfix releases would
> >> have to all be done in February, or could yyyy.mm.xx with xx > 0, mean
> >> that the release was not done in that month, but just the branching
> >> was?
> >
> >
> > While I think the answer to that _should_ be obvious (just look at Ubuntu
> > LTS version numbers...), it is one reason why I'm not too keen about
> using
> > the month. I'd say YY.AA.PP with YY = year, AA, PP = simply incrementing
> > should be good enough and avoids silly questions like do we take the
> month
> > of the release or of the first -rc? What if the release slips into the
> next
> > month by a few days?
>
> I second that. YY.AA where YY=year, AA \in {0,1,2,3}.
>

Agreed.  It also reduces confusion about what to expect the next version
number to be and "where did 17.3 go?  Oh wait, there wasn't one".  Ubuntu
is consistent enough that they always do .4 and .10 so people know exactly
what's coming.  We aren't that consistent so I think having it be YY.MM for
some random set of MM will just confuse people.

Marek, Did you mean YY.AA or YY.A?  I don't think we need two digits for
the minor number.

--Jason
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/mesa-dev/attachments/20161212/5608f70a/attachment.html>