On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 9:05 AM, Dominique Devienne <ddevienne at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 5:39 PM, Richard Hipp <drh at sqlite.org> wrote: > > On 10/7/15, Jaroslaw Staniek <staniek at kde.org> wrote: > > > ? would you elaborate what? is the > > > benefit of using x.y.z versioning scheme if so many new features come > to > > > the "z" release? > > > > [...] The community seems to want the second number (current 8) to > > increment > > every time a new feature is added to SQLite. I will take your request > > under advisement. Realize, however, that had the current preferred > > number scheme been used for SQLite from the beginning, the next > > release would be called 3.112. > > > > That 3.112 version is a better reflection of all the changes in a way. > > Minor version bumps are kinda arbitrary, Having been involved in open source and commercial software for 25 years, by now I've figured out that version numbers are themselves kinda arbitrary. I honestly don't think that the SQLite mailing list having this tired old discussion is going to shed any new light on the issue or result in a system which pleases everyone. There is no chance that the version number is going to become a standardized reliable form out out-of-band messaging. If you care about what's in there, you're going to have to pay attention to what's in there. -scott
