Hi
Once we've done a full SUSv4 audit we could start thinking about something like a 1.0.0. This release will be 0.9.32
I personally think you are artificially attached to keeping the version numbers low (ie in the opposite direction)? Why not call that SUSv4 release version 2? (or 3?)
I do get that the numbering is completely arbitrary, but equally you could be seen as arguing completely the opposite direction? I mean to programmers, what is wrong with a major release of functionality occurring between version 2.3.4.5 and 2.3.4.6? However, to less technical folks it's a good hint as to the progress of the project
On the other hand it's not entirely unreasonable to point out that "much" of the world tends to use an easily increasing first digit for major releases (which in a previous thread it was already agreed that nearly all uclibc releases are pretty much "major releases"?), a minor release second digit and a point release third digit. Agreed it's completely arbitrary, but it does help keep a sense of perspective on progress to an outside observer?
Anyway, the whole point is it's completely arbitrary... (But I do think a major addition such as nptl threads is worth of an increase in major version number? SUSv4 audit might also be?)
Cheers Ed W _______________________________________________ uClibc mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
