[xorg-bugzilla-noise] [Bug 351] Monolithic Second Release (1.1) must fix

[bugzilla-daemon at pdx.freedesktop.org]

http://pdx.freedesktop.org/cgi-bin/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=351

mharris at www.linux.org.uk changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |mharris at www.linux.org.uk



------- Additional Comments From mharris at www.linux.org.uk  2004-04-03 13:56 -------
Having the version be refered to as "1" for X11R6.7 is confusing IMHO.
Calling the next release "1.1" seems like an equally bad idea to me.

I think a better approach in the future, is to give the in-development
releases that do not have a known version number yet, to be given release
codenames.  This practice is pretty standard at most software corporations,
and also in most large and medium sized OSS software projects.

For the version reported by the X server, it should probably follow a scheme
similar to XFree86, or the kernel or something, so that all development
snapshots don't show up as "version 6.7" in bug reports.  They show up
instead as "Version: 6.7.99.n" where n is some agreed upon numbering scheme.
XFree86 uses a monotonically increasing integer which is incremented every
2 weeks and a CVS snapshot dump is made (which may or may not even compile,
but usually does).  Once code freeze is entered and release candidates are
being made, the 4th level version is bumped to 900, then monotonically
incremented until the final release is made.

That scheme isn't the prettiest, but it is functional at least.  Another
scheme we could go with is one like the Linux kernel follows, where all
stable releases have an even numbered 2nd level version (2.0, 2.2, 2.4) and
all developmental releases have odd numbered 2nd level version (2.1, 2.3, 2.5).

Either way, some sane version numbering is needed, or we're going to be very
confused in bug reports and other aspects of development, and Xorg X11
users will also be very confused.  Having the CVS branch named after the
real release development version or name makes more sense than a number
pulled out of thin air.  If it is uniformly decided to use a random and
meaningless number though, I suggest that 1.1 is very boring, and that
we use 53.3245616 instead.  It holds the same amount of meaning, but is
more interesting, and will make people more curious about what it stands
for, and generally more interested in X.org due to the mystique of the
version numbering.

;oP



------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.