Re: [Cppcms-users] versioning scheme (Re: Getting to feature freeze for CppCMS 1.0.0

[Artyom B. <art...@ya...>]

Augustin wrote:

> Secondly, I would like to suggest the adoption of a much simpler numbering 
> scheme. You clearly adopted the three digit number like the linux kernel (my 
> kernel version: 2.6.38). I think a two digit version number would be much 
> easier to understand in the long run.
> 
> You speak of API and ABI compatibility. The first digit would simply refer to 
> that. The second digit would simply represent the bug-fix releases.
> 
> According to wikipedia, the linux kernel version 2.6.0 was released on 18 
> December 2003: it means the 2.6.x branch is almost 8 years old, and the only 
> digit that matters is the 3rd one, i.e. supposedly the list significant one! 
> It makes no sense to me.
> 
> In the roadmap, you refer to 1.1.0 as the next stable release... but how do 
> you decide when to pass to 2.0.0? When we have reached 1.9.0?
> 
> 

Once CppCMS released in version 1.0.0 the major versions would look like

[Major].[Minor].[Patch]

Major - defines API and ABI compatibility it expected to be 1 for a
        long time. Release of 2.0.0 would mean a major API changes.

        Not planned at this point.

Minor - Releases that adds new features and functionality such that:

        all that works with 1.0 would work with 1.2 but not other way
        around.

        The even numbers would mark stable releases 1.0, 1.2, 1.4
        and odd numbers would mark development releases 1.1, 1.3 that
        would become on stable release +1 1.1 -> 1.2 and 1.3->1.4
        upon release.

Patch - bug fix release that do not change API.

The 0.99.X and 0.999.X version scheme is a beta-X and RC-X pre-release
scheme - i.e. pre 1.0.0. version

Artyom Beilis