Re: A proposal...
On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 1:50 PM, William A Rowe Jr <wrowe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 3:46 PM, Eric Covener <covener@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> One thing you mention above is "wait for a new minor release". I can
>>>> definitely see that being an issue for our current maj.minor layout given
>>>> that minor bumps are measured in years. In this proposal, unless there's a
>>>> pressing need to send out a patch release right now, the next version WOULD
>>>> be that minor bump. Put into practice, I would see major bumps being
>>>> measured in years, minor bumps in quarters and patch bumps in weeks/months.
>> I don't see how the minor releases would be serviceable for very long
>> there. If they're not serviceable,
>> then users have to move up anyway, then you're back at the status quo
>> with the dot in a different place.
> I don't see where a version minor will be serviced for a particularly long
> time after the next minor is released *as GA*. So, if version 3.5.0 comes
> along and introduces some rather unstable or unproved code, and gets
> the seal of approval as -alpha... 3.5.1 is a bit better but has known bugs,
> it earns a -beta. Finally 3.5.2 is released as GA. In all of that time, I'd
> expect the project continues to fix defects is 3.4.x on a very regular
> basis, not expecting anyone to pick up 3.5 during that time. This is what
> substantially differs from using our least significant revision element
> for both minor and patch scope changes.
Thanks Bill. This aspect does look helpful.