On Sat, 6 Mar 2010, Jed Brown wrote: > On Sat, 6 Mar 2010 13:09:57 -0600 (CST), Satish Balay <balay at mcs.anl.gov> > wrote: > > And we never land at the orignial-intended convention you are refering > > to. Perhaps one rationale used was: Currently linux-kernel only > > changes the sub-minor version for any and all changes - so current > > petsc scheme is equivalent, [instead of .p1,.p2, linux kernel uses an > > extra .1,.2 etc..] and no need for petsc to adhere to the original > > convention. > > The Linux 2.4 to 2.6 transition broke almost everything that depended on > kernel interfaces (e.g. device drivers) and moved certain functionality > to an entirely different system (e.g sysfs). This could certainly have > been called 3.0, but they chose 2.6 and it seems entirely possible that > all future releases will be 2.6.x. Linux uses the y in 2.6.x.y for > fully compatible updates (mainly just bug fixes), so it's essentially > one decimal removed from the standard convention.
What I meant to say is: [if you ignore 2.3.2->3.0.0 jump] PETSc also complies with the same logic. You can say - petsc uses the eqivalent 3.0.x.py notation. > They wouldn't release 2.8.0 unless there was a redesign of > comparable size to 2.4 -> 2.6. > > [Also as you indicate - gnome also doesn't conform - by removing > > subminor release number] > > Actually, I think they do conform in the sense that they never put > ABI-incompatible changes in a subminor release. Since they never make > releases of any sort that preserve ABI compatibility, they don't bother > with the extra decimal place since the subminor would always be 0. > > > Are you sugesting going from: > > > > petsc-3.0.0-p0.tar.gz > > petsc-3.0.0-p1.tar.gz > > > > to: > > > > petsc-3.1.0-p0.tar.gz > > or > > petsc-3.1-p0.tar.gz > > Yes, and if the next release happened to preserve ABI compatibility, > then it would be called 3.1.1-p0. We've given up on preserving ABI changes in releases a long-long time. So the above is not likely to happen. [even of there are no ABI changes - we will not flag it as so - as we won't know for sure..] > > The alternative - not suggested is: > > petsc-3.1.0.tar.gz > > petsc-3.1.1.tar.gz > > etc.. > > This would be okay, but I wasn't suggesting this because subminor has > the connotation that it may introduce new functionality, which a patch > level never does. Well petsc patches are now becoming more than just bug fixes. [they are generally minor fixes - could be additional functionality]. Satish > > > Any change is bound to create some confusion with users.. > > I don't see 3.1.0-p0 instead of 3.0.1-p0 causing any confusion, and > would eliminate confusion of anyone not familiar with PETSc wondering > why interfaces have changed relative to 3.0.0. > > Jed >
