Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote (31 May 2015 03:42:32 GMT) : > Sorry, I probably don't understand the current versioning scheme very > well -- is there canonical documentation i should read about its > semantics?
I don't think so. Basically: * we're not very clear what the first component means (1.0 had a well-defined meaning, no idea what 2.0 will be; we're currently using 2.0 and 3.0 on our roadmap to make mid/long-term perspectives and goals more readable to everyone involved, but that doesn't mean we'll indeed release ISOs labeled 2.0 and 3.0 when we reach them; I know that's confusing, sorry) * we increment the second component when we put out what we call a "major" release (new features, mostly -- and a release candidate is needed) * we include a 3rd component for point-releases (bugfixes only, no release candidate) > I would normally guess that a "major release" meant a change in the > first value (e.g. from 1.x to 2.0). I tend to favor the simplest > versioning scheme that provides the semantic flexibility needed by the > project. It's indeed tempting to simplify, drop our current usage of the first component, and increment the first component for every major release. In a year we would be at 5.0, which may raise concerns from folks who don't like e.g. Firefox' version number inflation. I think that for now, I prefer my original proposal that changes semantics in a less drastic way. > This is pretty much bike-shedding, though, and whatever folks are > comfortable with is fine with me. Same. Cheers, -- intrigeri _______________________________________________ Tails-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mailman.boum.org/listinfo/tails-dev To unsubscribe from this list, send an empty email to [email protected].
