Re: [Gretl-devel] versioning
Am 15.09.2015 um 16:07 schrieb Allin Cottrell:
Pro:
* Version identifiers become clearly informative. If someone tells you
they're running gretl YYYYx you know immediately how old it is without
having to look up the change log.
Not compelling, but also nice.
* It reflects the fact that gretl development has been for many years a
more or less continuous process. <...>but to date we have
never signalled that by a change in the "major" version number, which is
therefore uninformative.
IMHO this is the major advantage.
Con:
* We'd be out of line with most free-software projects, which tend (for
whatever historical reason) to the use the M.N.P versioning idiom.
If we were at M==38 or M==40 like Thunderbird or Firefox the MNP system
would be less of a problem...
* We would lose the ability to signal a major, backward-incompatible
change with a major-version bump. (But it's not clear that we'd ever
actually want to do that.)
Right (to the statement in parenthesis), see the thing on "continuous"
process.
It would obviously be easy to retrospectively label all releases to date
using the proposed scheme (e.g. in the change log, where we should keep
the old version IDs too, for reference).
But why do that and "fake" history?
cheers,
sven