On Sat, 6 Mar 2010 13:59:58 -0600 (CST), Satish Balay <balay at mcs.anl.gov> wrote: > 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.
2.2.1 to 2.3.0 (instead of 2.2.2) also seemed somewhat arbitrary to me. I suppose 2.2.0 was more major in that the entire SLES object disappeared (I started with 2.2.0). Doing subminor releases, with minor releases reserved only for cases of similar impact (a major user-visible object vanishing), and doing major releases only for something on the scale of a full rewrite would also be a self-consistent model. I just don't see the value in having major, minor, and subminor releases all mean the same thing up to a subjective opinion of "how much" it is. > We've given up on preserving ABI changes in releases a long-long Yeah, it's a huge amount of effort, and really crippling when the goal is to actually make things better. > Well petsc patches are now becoming more than just bug fixes. [they > are generally minor fixes - could be additional functionality]. Then I would be happy with getting rid of "patch levels" and just using subminor for these compatible changes. Jed
