On Sat, 6 Mar 2010 17:12:33 -0600, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote: > > I have no objection to making each PETSc release crank up the > second digit. And organizing the numbers as 3.1-pX then 3.2-pX etc. > > Historical explanation why we had the strange numbering before. > 1) Most PETSc users don't know anything about "Open source standards > for release numbers" so we didn't feel a need to use it. It is only > the occasional oddball like you that ever comments on this. > 2) We use to make releases far more often, then I didn't like the idea > of always cranking up the second digit since I felt it implied some > relatively large changes in the libraries when there really were not > any. So, yes it was somewhat arbitrary but not random.
Thanks for the explanation. I actually brought this up in response to comments I've heard from users and other libs that depend on PETSc, to the effect of, "What are they thinking changing X in a subminor release?" So it's not just me, but perhaps the users that ascribe a precise meaning to minor vs. subminor version numbers are still in the minority. Jed
