I feel like we wouldn't use the last digit much in a triplet number because, IIRC, backporting of fixes is not planned. That being said, I would also begin with at least 2.1, as Cirilo said.
However, I personally vote for numbering the versions a la MATLAB. On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 1:34 AM, Nick Østergaard <[email protected]> wrote: > 2014-10-20 7:19 GMT+02:00 Cirilo Bernardo <[email protected]>: > > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 8:58 AM, Wayne Stambaugh <[email protected] > > > > wrote: > >> > >> In the past we have used the repo commit number as the stable version > >> number. I'm not sure this is the best idea as there can be overlapping > >> commit numbers in separate branches. I would like to propose using > >> something that we can clearly identify as a release version to prevent > >> confusion due to duplicate commit version numbers. I recently committed > >> the stable release policy to the developers documentation but I > >> intentionally left out the version number section because I wanted to > >> make sure we are on board with the idea. It would make it clear to > >> developers, users and packagers that they are using a stable release > >> versus a development release. It also makes it easier to name source > >> and binary packages. I'm perfectly happy using the good old fashioned > >> numerical triplet (#.#.#). It's easy for most version comparison > >> functions to deal with. I suggest for the next stable release we start > >> at the beginning 1.0.0. If no one objects, I will update the stable > >> release policy and add the code to CMakeLists.txt before we get to the > >> next stable release. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> Wayne > > > > > > I'm not in favor of 1.0.0 because this suggests that this is the first > > release after Beta. > > KiCad has a much longer history of productive use. I think at least > 2.1.x > > - 2 because > > this is very different from what many Linux distributions consider as the > > last KiCad > > stable (old pcb format) and .1 because there has also been a revision of > the > > new > > pcb file format to support 32 copper + 32 tech layers. I don't really > have > > any strong > > preference for the '.1' part, but we definitely need at least '2' for the > > major version; > > humans are funny creatures and tend to associate version 1 with an > inferior > > product. > > > > - Cirilo > > I am actually also in favor of the 2 in the major version, just after > the fact that KiCad has had releases before, and that it has all these > major changes we all love. > > Nick > > _______________________________________________ > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers > Post to : [email protected] > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp >
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
