Re: Criticism of "version numbering"-document

Cipriano Groenendal wrote:

Yeah I agree that its ugly to loose out all the nice version numbers since we start at x.0.0 for major versions greater than 1. So maybe the solution is to start new major version out with a version number below 1.0.0 and then have them move to x.0.0 on the first RC or stable release, where x denotes the major version number. So in that case my first alpha release for MDB2 could have been 0.1.0 and the next beta would be 0.2.0 (since I added features) and then 2.0.0RC1 and then finally for the first stable release 2.0.0. With the state not being appended and RC not being a state and using state beta instead.

This seems to be a nice compromise. Most people already tend to see 0.x.x as non-stable versions, but if you jump from 0.x.x to 2.0.0 you clearly instantly mark the package as stable, and MDB2 2.0.0 > MDB 1.15.99. The only time where a confusion could arrise is when comparing between say MDB2 0.1.0 and MDB 1.2.3. But most of the people willing to go for an unstable package, will hopefully be able to figure out the difference between these two, and end-users that may have more difficulty in interpreting version numbers, will usually stay away from any 0.x series, and pick MDB-1.2.3. I'd say a big +1 for the 0.9.9 -> 2.0.0 jump Lukas posted. Cipri

Hi all, could someone summarize what the real problem is? ;-) And just another thought for example MDB / MDB2: MDB2 breaks BC from MDB. And for the reason that one can use it at the same time it was renamed to MDB2 and is now an independant package, isn't it!? Hello, everybody! ;-) Just to make it clear: In my opinion it _is_ simply a new package! And I guess the installer makes no difference between them, too!? So why not apply the 'normal versioning' to it and start with MDB2 version 0.1.0 and the first stable release is simply 1.0.0 ??? No more problems with "how to mark it as alpha/beta???" ! I think everybody can understand that MDB2 is probably better/newer than MDB! But I can't understand why you don't start versioning just like any other package? Is the 2 in MDB2 not enough for you? Or in another package maybe a MDBv2 ? Besides I don't think that 'odd/even versioning' is a good one, becaus it will only confuse people and rise more flames... And a missing 1.y.z in the versioning of a package is also confusing! Regards, Matthias