On 25/12/10 14:29, Ed W wrote: > 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 >
Please guys, let's work together to improve further uClibc, without spending so much in discussions regarding the numbering policy, that is anyway a important part of the release strategy. I agree with Bernhard's current strategy. I'd suggest to include the prelink stuff in 0.9.33, so we can create a rc1 once prelink will start to get merged, and continue with SUSv4 audit. So we will have 0.9.32 -> NPTL, 0.9.33 -> prelink, keeping invasive changes separated. Cheers, Carmelo _______________________________________________ uClibc mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
