[U-Boot-Users] Release numbering (was Merge Window Closed.)
Jerry Van Baren
gerald.vanbaren at smiths-aerospace.com
Wed Aug 29 16:55:34 CEST 2007
Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> In message <46D2FEB0.6090900 at googlemail.com> you wrote:
>> What's about a u-boot-1.3.0-rc1 tag in git and a
>> u-boot-1.3.0-rc1.tar.bz2 on ftp server?
>
> Will do that. But I want to integrate the first round of feedback
> first. There are way too many show-stopper bugs in the current code
> to call it a release candidate. If I just had a little more time...
>
> Best regards,
>
> Wolfgang Denk
What about adopting Ubuntu's philosophy and numbering by year and month Y.M?
<http://www.ubuntu.com/aboutus/faq>
This has the disadvantage of not clearly marking major changes
(discontinuities) e.g. 1.x -> 2.0 or 1.2.y -> 1.3.0. Assuming there
are no earth-shattering discontinuities in the future, that isn't a
problem. I'm not sure we are "there" yet, but u-boot has been around
and refined for quite some time now and the changes have become a lot
more incremental (or maybe I've just become more comfortable with it?).
On the "advantages" side...
1) It acknowledges that u-boot (as with most open source projects) is
subject to continuous rolling improvement.
2) It eliminates the debate of whether the major or just the minor
number needs to be rolled.
3) When someone says "my build based on version 7.8 is broken" we can
scale our scorn based on how old the release is without having to look
it up. ;-)
4) This is also in line with Linus's current philosophy that the kernel
will be 2.6.xxxxxx forever. (I suspect this won't hold literally true
forever, I predict the "2.6" prefix will eventually be dropped.)
Going to date-based numbering makes a lot of sense to me.
Best regards,
gvb
More information about the U-Boot
mailing list