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

[Martin Krause]

u-boot-users-bounces at lists.sourceforge.net wrote on :
> 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.

Me too!

Best Regards,
Martin

--
TQ-Systems GmbH
Muehlstrasse 2, Gut Delling, D-82229 Seefeld
Amtsgericht Muenchen, HRB 105 018, UST-IdNr. DE 811 607 913
Geschaeftsfuehrer: Dipl.-Ing. (FH) Detlef Schneider, Dipl.-Ing. (FH) Ruediger Stahl
http://www.tq-group.com