On Wed, Apr 23, 2003 at 10:03:49PM +0200, Jaka Jejcic wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 23, 2003 at 12:45:28PM -0700, Jeff Rizzo wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 23, 2003 at 08:27:17PM +0300, Arto Huusko wrote:
> > 
> > > And while I'm here, I could just as well say my opinion on this: I think
> > > bumbing -current's version to "just_released + 1" is a good idea. So,
> > > we'd be now at 1.7R. And I don't think it's a problem if it is not known
> > > beforehand what the actual release will be called. If there won't be
> > > 1.7, fine. 1.7ZZZA just becomes 2.0 then (and -current 2.1A).
> > 
> > I have to say, though this would confuse _me_ at first, because
> > I'm used to the existing scheme, I'm sure it would make much more
> > sense to new users.  I know it's been discussed before and didn't
> > receive such a great reception, I think it would do a lot
> > to alleviate the "what do you mean 1.6.1 isn't an upgrade
> > from 1.6Q?" factor.
> 
> Though i agree completely that it would make things easier to understand
> there is one little problem which i think current scheme does better.
> Now we tag -current version by the last release it has branched from.
> So there is never a question what number the current should have. But when
> we would change to a system where -current is named "in advance" we
> don't know whether to name it 1.7A or 2.0A of something similar. But when
> we solve this, I think we got the best of both worlds.


I don't think that's really a problem... in this case, it would have 
been "1.7A", and then when the decision was made that the next release would
be "2.0", it could just be changed at that time. It's not a problem
to _increase_ version numbers;  the issues we're seeing now is that
new folks tend to see things like 1.6R as "lower" than 1.6.1; the
confusion wouldn't happen with the 1.6->1.7A scheme.

So, once 2.0 is released, -current would become 2.1A, followed
by 2.1B, etc... if a decision was made to have "2.5" be the next
release (not that I think that's a good idea), it could go from
2.1X (or whatever) to 2.5, then current would become 2.6A.

+j
-- 
Jeff Rizzo                                         http://boogers.sf.ca.us/~riz