Re: (release) versioning

[Tim Deegan <tim@xen.org>]

Hi,

At 16:54 +0100 on 05 May (1430844841), Jan Beulich wrote:
> So comparing current and new schemes things would go
> 
> 	OLD			NEW
> 	4.6-unstable		5.0-unstable (or 5.0.0)
> 	4.6.0-rc1			5.0.1 (-rc1)
> 	...			...
> 	4.6.0-rcN			5.0.N (-rcN)
> 	4.6.0			5.1.0
> 	4.6.1-rc1			5.1.1 (-rc1)
> 	...			...
> 	4.6.1			5.2.0
> 

I prefer the old scheme to the proposed one.  In particular:
 - it's not at all clear to an outsider that 5.0.x is
   unstable and unsupported.
 - main releases of Xen will always be "x.1.0", which makes them
   look like point releases; all the more so because actual point
   releases will be "x.2.0" &c.

If the problem is that the major version number doesn't mean anything,
then we could just drop it.   E.g. more like:

 	OLD			NEW
 	4.6-unstable		6-unstable
 	4.6.0-rc1		6.0-rc1
 	...			...
 	4.6.0-rcN		6.0-rcN
 	4.6.0			6.0
 	4.6.1-rc1		6.1-rc1
 	...			...
 	4.6.1			6.1
        4.7-unstable		7-unstable

> This additionally has the benefit that taking only the numeric
> part of the version string then would sort properly.

With s/6.0/6.0-release/ then the scheme above sorts OK too.  I don't
see why being able to sort RCs based only on the numbers would be
useful.

Tim.