[vlc-devel] [RFC] Version numbering

[Derk-Jan Hartman]

On 9 aug 2008, at 16:34, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
> 	Hello,
>
> According to configure.ac:
> Our major version number is zero.
> 0.9.0 will be a minor new version.
> 0.8.6 was a revision.
> 0.8.6a-i were hmm, a nothing.
>
> This is IMHO plain silly. The only justification I have ever heard  
> for this
> scheme are the minor version codenames that were planned a long time  
> ago. The
> explanation goes such that we run out of codenames past 1.0 (after  
> 0.9).

Traditionally, the a-z series were only really for packaging mistakes  
made in releases.
They were not ever intended to be for releases with changes in the code.

> I feel feature-release should at least be minor version increment,  
> whereas bug
> fixes should be revision number increments. Well, that's a no- 
> brainer even. I
> think we should rather reserve the entire 0.9.x series for 0.9.0- 
> bugfix. Then
> the next feature release becomes 1.0.x or perhaps -hmmph- 0.10.x.  
> And we drop
> the meaningless codenaming scheme altogether, as well as the letter
> sub-releases.

Pro. mostly. Of course, we should just adopt a NEW meaningless  
codenaming scheme :D

DJ