Re: [Qemu-devel] release retrospective, next release timing, numbering

[Cornelia Huck]

On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 19:36:40 +0200
Thomas Huth <address@hidden> wrote:

> On 30.04.2018 13:21, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 11:33:12 +0100
> > Daniel P. Berrangé <address@hidden> wrote:  
> [...]
> >> Given, that we have a clear deprecation process now, my view is that
> >> we should formally declare that major version numbers changes are
> >> meaningless. As soon as you try to assign special meaning to major
> >> version changes, you open the door to endless debate about whether
> >> a particular set of changes is meaningful enough to justify the
> >> major version change, leading to eventually 2.42.   
> > 
> > I agree.  
> 
> I agree with this, too. We've seen that in some v3.0 discussions during
> the last year.
> 
> >> Two possible options
> >>
> >>  a) Bump major version once a year, so we'll have 3.0, 3.1, 3.3,
> >>     4.0, 4.1, 4.2, 5.0, ...etc  We missed the first release this
> >>     year, so we would only have 3.0 and 3.1 this year.
> >>
> >>  b) Bump major release when minor version gets double-digits.
> >>     eg 3.0, 3.1, ...., 3.9, 3.9, 4.0, ...., 4.9, 5.0...  
> 
> It's just a matter of taste, but I think I'd prefer variant b). That
> will bump the major release approx. every three years which sounds like
> a good time frame for me.

I think anything that keeps release numbers in ascending order would
basically work :)

> 
> > If we bump the major version each year anyway, why not go the whole way
> > and use 2018.1, 2018.2, ... (or even <year>.<month>)? The nice thing
> > about that is that you can see at a glance when the release took place.  
> 
> ... or simply drop the first two digits and call them 18.1, 18.2, ...?

Uh, and what happens in the next century?

:)

So many options, and all make some sense... I predict we stay with the
same numbering as before :)