gnupic: gputils 1.0.0 Release Candidate 1
Subject:
Re: gputils 1.0.0 Release Candidate 1
From:
Peter Stuge ####@####.####
Date:
10 Dec 2012 06:58:26 -0000
Message-Id: <20121210065821.7819.qmail@stuge.se>
Alain Portal wrote:
> If the maintainer of the software forgets to integrate the license
> in the 1.0 version (1.0.0), it should create a version 1.1 to fix
> this?
Sure - why not?
> Version 1.0.1 is sufficient for this ...
Sure, just like 1.0.0.0.1 is sufficient. My point is that the number
of zeros between those two ones is quite arbitrary.
> If the maintainer of the software decides to include a new
> translation of man pages in version 1.1 (1.0.1), it should create
> a version 1.2 for this?
Again - why not?
> Version 1.0.2 is sufficient for this ...
Sure, just like 1.0.0.0.2 is sufficient. The number of zeros is
arbitrary.
> x.y.z is a commonly accepted rule in the Linux community,
No, not really. It is used by many packages, but many other packages
use other numbering. As you probably know the Linux kernel uses x.y
numbers since 3.0. Various packages even use only a single x number.
> why do you ignore?
I'm looking at what makes sense. For gputils I think it would make
sense to use one number less, because development is moderate. In
case that should change there's also no problem to add a number
later.
> Why do you want to change this rule so simple? Why do you try to
> impose a new model?
> Why?
> Why?
I actually mentioned why already in my first reply. I hope the above
helps clarify.
> In version 1.1 (1.1.0), I expect something other than correcting a
> spelling mistake, the translation of the manual pages Lithuanian,
> and adding the license forgotten ...
I'd suggest to read the changelog for each release, rather than to
make assumptions about what has changed based on the version numbers.
> z is much more useful than believed people who come to see once a year if
> there is a new version of their favorite software, because other come see
> every day ...
I'm not sure I see the difference. Regardless of how often, the
visitors who stop by to check for updates notice that there has
been a new release, or there has been no new release.
A few numbers can never convey what has changed.
> Please...
> Go back to Windows!
If you prefer, feel free to exchange the Windows 95 example with
Fedora Core 17 or Ubuntu 12.10.
Canonical went further and stripped the numbers of all significance,
making them represent a simple snapshot date. (year 2012 month 10)
That's fine for a project with significant development, where "lots"
can be expected to change between snapshots, but for gputils I think
1.0 is a nice sweet spot.
Any decision is of course for the maintainer to make, neither Alain
nor me. I just thought now was a good time to bring it up.
//Peter
