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

[Albert ARIBAUD]

Ben Warren a écrit :
> Kumar Gala wrote:
>> On Aug 1, 2008, at 10:32 AM, Wolfgang Denk 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).
>>>
>>> My suggestion for the new version numbers is as follows:
>>>
>>> VERSION = 1	(at least for the time being)
>>>
>>> PATCHLEVEL = current year - 2000
>>>
>>> SUBLEVEL = current month
>>>
>>> Both PATCHLEVEL and SUBLEVEL shall always be 2 digits (at  least  for
>>> the  next 91+ years to come) so listings for example on an FTP server
>>> shall be in a sane sorting order.
>>>
>>> If we accept this system, the next release which probably comes out
>>> in October 2008 would be v1.08.10, and assuming the one after that
>>> comes out in January 2009 would be named v1.09.01
>>>     
>> If we go to date based versions.  I'd prefer we keep year as 4 digits:
>>
>> v1.2008.10
>> v1.2009.01
>>
>> It just seems easier to me at a visual level when I look at try and  
>> compare versions.
>>
>> - k
>>   
> I vote for this one, but starting at v2.

Just one thing: Verson numbering can be anything you want, but I think 
it should be self-consistent. And on that account, I realize that the 
"v1" part has no real meaning wrt to the rest of the version string, 
which date-related -- unless there is a plan to have simultaneous v1 and 
v2 releases, in which case it makes sense to have "v1".

Amicalement,
-- 
Albert.