Re: [Cdk-user] Project Versioning

[Emilio Xavier Esposito]

Hi
>From the perspective of a user, I prefer the
{major}.{minor}.{maintenance} versioning system. It also matches the
numbering system other applications are using.

Emilio

On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 11:05 AM, Rajarshi Guha  wrote:
> I like the major.minor form because it's closer to what is happening in
> terms of code changes.
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 3:27 AM, John M  wrote:
>>
>> This has come up before, but wanted to hear from users.
>>
>> Currently the project versioning system is 1.{odd/even}.{number} where by
>> 1 is fixed for now, odd/even for stability (e.g. 1.4.x stable, 1.5.x
>> unstable), the last number just increments. This system hints that 1.4 is
>> the preferred version as being "stable" but this hasn't been touched in
>> years. Stable here really means API is fixed, but often also be interpreted
>> as more robust. This odd/even number was used by Linux kernal until 2004 but
>> is not any longer. I'm hesitant to bump to 1.6 on this systems as working
>> deep in the code base I know a lot of things need fixing.
>>
>> Does this system make sense/do you like this system?
>>
>> I would like to propose switching to the following version system:
>> {major}.{minor}.{maintenance}. Where by {major}=API change, {minor}=new API,
>> {maintenance}=bug fix/patch release. Number will climb faster but I believe
>> it will be easier to pinpoint how much further ahead a new version is.
>>
>> At the end of the day it's just a number.
>>
>> Regards,
>> John W May
>> john.wilkinson...@gmail.com
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> ___
>> Cdk-user mailing list
>> Cdk-user@lists.sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cdk-user
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Rajarshi Guha | http://blog.rguha.net
> NIH Center for Advancing Translational Science
>
> --
>
> ___
> Cdk-user mailing list
> Cdk-user@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cdk-user
>

--
___
Cdk-user mailing list
Cdk-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cdk-user

Re: [Cdk-user] Project Versioning

[Rajarshi Guha]

I like the major.minor form because it's closer to what is happening in
terms of code changes.


On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 3:27 AM, John M  wrote:

> This has come up before, but wanted to hear from users.
>
> Currently the project versioning system is 1.{odd/even}.{number} where by
> 1 is fixed for now, odd/even for stability (e.g. 1.4.x stable, 1.5.x
> unstable), the last number just increments. This system hints that 1.4 is
> the preferred version as being "stable" but this hasn't been touched in
> years. Stable here really means API is fixed, but often also be interpreted
> as more robust. This odd/even number *was* used by Linux kernal until
> 2004 but is not any longer. I'm hesitant to bump to 1.6 on this systems as
> working deep in the code base I know a lot of things need fixing.
>
> Does this system make sense/do you like this system?
>
> I would like to propose switching to the following version system:
> {major}.{minor}.{maintenance}. Where by {major}=API change, {minor}=new
> API, {maintenance}=bug fix/patch release. Number will climb faster but I
> believe it will be easier to pinpoint how much further ahead a new version
> is.
>
> At the end of the day it's just a number.
>
> Regards,
> John W May
> john.wilkinson...@gmail.com
>
> 
> --
>
> ___
> Cdk-user mailing list
> Cdk-user@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cdk-user
>
>


-- 
Rajarshi Guha | http://blog.rguha.net
NIH Center for Advancing Translational Science
--
___
Cdk-user mailing list
Cdk-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cdk-user

[Cdk-user] Project Versioning

[John M]

This has come up before, but wanted to hear from users.

Currently the project versioning system is 1.{odd/even}.{number} where by 1
is fixed for now, odd/even for stability (e.g. 1.4.x stable, 1.5.x
unstable), the last number just increments. This system hints that 1.4 is
the preferred version as being "stable" but this hasn't been touched in
years. Stable here really means API is fixed, but often also be interpreted
as more robust. This odd/even number *was* used by Linux kernal until 2004
but is not any longer. I'm hesitant to bump to 1.6 on this systems as
working deep in the code base I know a lot of things need fixing.

Does this system make sense/do you like this system?

I would like to propose switching to the following version system:
{major}.{minor}.{maintenance}. Where by {major}=API change, {minor}=new
API, {maintenance}=bug fix/patch release. Number will climb faster but I
believe it will be easier to pinpoint how much further ahead a new version
is.

At the end of the day it's just a number.

Regards,
John W May
john.wilkinson...@gmail.com
--
___
Cdk-user mailing list
Cdk-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cdk-user