On Oct 3, 2016 12:19 AM, "Albert Freeman" <<a href="mailto:albertwdfreeman@gmail.com">albertwdfreeman@gmail.com</a>> wrote: > > year.month or year.dayoutofdaysthatyear Why are we adding more options to an already confused discussion? > dayoutoofdaysthatyear skips lots of integers quickly: reducing > confusion of where is release x.(y - something) and better handles > quick fix releases > but makes it harder to determine how far into the year the release is > although with some effort can be converted into an exact date Quick fix releases are already handled by the stable release system which I don't think anyone is recommending we get rid of. Also, I haven't heard anyone complain that year.quarter (really, year.releaseofyear) isn't shipping enough integers. I don't see what problem your suggestion is solving. > On 2 October 2016 at 14:22, Tobias Klausmann > <<a href="mailto:tobias.johannes.klausmann@mni.thm.de">tobias.johannes.klausmann@mni.thm.de</a>> wrote: > > > > > > On 02.10.2016 13:56, Nicolai Hähnle wrote: > >> > >> On 01.10.2016 22:22, Tobias Klausmann wrote: > >>> > >>> On 01.10.2016 21:46, Marek Olšák wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Hi, > >>>> > >>>> I propose that we use versioning in the form of "year.quarter". > >>>> > >>>> 2017 would start with 17.0, then 17.1, 17.2, 17.3 for following > >>>> quarters of the year, respectively. > >>>> 2018 would start with 18.0, then 18.1, 18.2, 18.3. > >>>> > >>>> The motivation is that you can easily tell when a specific Mesa > >>>> version was released with an accuracy of 3 months. > >>>> > >>>> That's the only scheme that seems practical to me. Everything else > >>>> seems arbitrary or random. > >>>> > >>>> Opinions? > >>> > >>> > >>> Why not just use year.month instead, would be more accurate...and > >>> releases happen semi random anyway and not after a given time. > >> > >> > >> That's fine for something like Ubuntu where they really stick to their two > >> releases per year, in the same months each year. I'm not so sure that that's > >> a realistic goal for Mesa, and if releases *aren't* consistently happening > >> in the same months, you end up introducing a lot of confusion about which > >> version numbers exist and which don't. > > > > > > This is true, but also holds true for year.quarter, if we miss one quarterly > > release (18.1, 18.2, 18.4, whoops where is 18.3). > > > >> > >> Time-based with YY.0 for the first release of the year, and then YY.1, > >> YY.2, etc. works fine. > > > > > > Thats allright and would help in not confuse people so much, but with it you > > miss the "when was it released again?" thing Marek tried to introduce. > > > > Greetings, > > Tobias > > > > > >> > >> Cheers, > >> Nicolai > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > mesa-dev mailing list > > <a href="mailto:mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org">mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org</a> > > <a href="https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev">https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev</a> > _______________________________________________ > mesa-dev mailing list > <a href="mailto:mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org">mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org</a> > <a href="https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev">https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev</a>