[U-Boot-Users] RFC: U-Boot version numbering

[Hugo Villeneuve]

u-boot-users-bounces at lists.sourceforge.net wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I would like to get your general opinion about  changing  the  U-Boot
> version numbering scheme.
> 
> To be honest, I never really understood myself how this  is  supposed
> to work and if the next version should be 1.3.4 or 1.4.0 or 2.0.0, i.
> e.  which  changes  / additions are important enough to increment the
> PATCHLEVEL or even VERSION number.
> 
> I therefor suggest to drop this style of version numbering and change
> to a timestamp based version  number  system  which  has  been  quite
> successfully  used  by  other  projects  (like  Ubuntu)  or  is under
> discussion (for Linux).

Hi,
IMHO I think it is best to stick with the same version numbering scheme that you started with, even if it is not perfect. The alternative timestamp  scheme is not perfect either. You can probably find as many advantages for one as for the other, and the same goes for the disadvantages.

Even when using timestamp schemes, people often attach numerical version numbers when refering to some releases. That would probably the case for the U-Boot V2 that is currently under developement. That just adds up to the confusion.

Then in some time, maybe someone will propose to switch to a name based version scheme, and so on, and so on... :)

Hugo V.

Hugo Villeneuve
Hardware developer | Concepteur matériel
Lyrtech
Phone/Tél. : (1) (418) 877-4644 #2395
Toll-free/Sans frais - Canada & USA : (1) (888) 922-4644 #2395
Fax/Téléc. : (1) (418) 877-7710
www.lyrtech.com
Infinite possibilities...TM