[ANNOUNCE] 0.9.32-rc1 released
Ed W
lists at wildgooses.com
Sat Dec 25 13:29:59 UTC 2010
Hi
> Once we've done a full SUSv4 audit we could start thinking about something like a 1.0.0.
> This release will be 0.9.32
I personally think you are artificially attached to keeping the version
numbers low (ie in the opposite direction)? Why not call that SUSv4
release version 2? (or 3?)
I do get that the numbering is completely arbitrary, but equally you
could be seen as arguing completely the opposite direction? I mean to
programmers, what is wrong with a major release of functionality
occurring between version 2.3.4.5 and 2.3.4.6? However, to less
technical folks it's a good hint as to the progress of the project
On the other hand it's not entirely unreasonable to point out that
"much" of the world tends to use an easily increasing first digit for
major releases (which in a previous thread it was already agreed that
nearly all uclibc releases are pretty much "major releases"?), a minor
release second digit and a point release third digit. Agreed it's
completely arbitrary, but it does help keep a sense of perspective on
progress to an outside observer?
Anyway, the whole point is it's completely arbitrary... (But I do think
a major addition such as nptl threads is worth of an increase in major
version number? SUSv4 audit might also be?)
Cheers
Ed W
More information about the uClibc
mailing list