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

[Ken.Fuchs at bench.com]

> > Wolfgang Denk wrote:

> > > Well, the "version 2" prefix is kind of already taken by 
> > > Sascha Hauers alternative implementation.
> > > 
> > > Should we go for 2.x.x anyway?

> On Wed, Aug 06, 2008 at 11:47:22AM -0500, Ken Fuchs wrote:

> > May I suggest CC.YY.MM?
> > 
> > VERSION = <Century number>
> > PATCHLEVEL = <Year number>
> > SUBLEVEL =  <Month number>
> > EXTRAVERSION = <NULL> or <special purpose>
> > 
> > So this month's release number would become 20.08.08. 

Scott Wood wrote:

> Why the extra dot after the century?  That looks like August 
> 20th, 2008 in certain date formats.

All such date formats that list smaller units (days) before larger
units (months or years) such that they don't sort properly are
deprecated.

> And no ability to release more than once a month?

The EXTRAVERSION preprocessor symbol can be defined to allow a new
release every picosecond, or more often, if necessary.

> Of course, we *could* base the version number on RFC 2550... :-)

To solve the Y10K, Y100K, Y1M, ... problems, the "CC" in "CC.YY.MM"
shall be defined to be as long as necessary.

------

OK, reserving VERSION for <Century number> may not be such a good idea
after all.

Here's another suggestion that most may agree with:

VERSION =    <Year number  = 2008..10**30-1>
PATCHLEVEL = <Month number = 1..12>
SUBLEVEL =   <Day number   = 1..31>
EXTRAVERSION = <NULL> or <special purpose>

A release on the opening day of the Olympics would be:

2008.08.08

Sincerely,

Ken Fuchs