[RFC/PATCH] howto/maintain-git.txt: new version numbering scheme

[RFC/PATCH] howto/maintain-git.txt: new version numbering scheme

[Junio C Hamano]

We wanted to call the upcoming release "Git 1.9", with its
maintenance track being "Git 1.9.1", "Git 1.9.2", etc., but various
third-party tools are reported to assume that there are at least
three dewey-decimal components in our version number.

Adjust the plan so that vX.Y.0 are feature releases while vX.Y.Z
(Z > 0) are maintenance releases.

Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
---

 * Haven't committed to this outline, but I am raising a
   weather-balloon to see reaction from the list.  Comments?

 Documentation/howto/maintain-git.txt | 18 +++++++++++-------
 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/howto/maintain-git.txt b/Documentation/howto/maintain-git.txt
index 33ae69c..ca43787 100644
--- a/Documentation/howto/maintain-git.txt
+++ b/Documentation/howto/maintain-git.txt
@@ -39,26 +39,26 @@ The policy on Integration is informally mentioned in "A Note
 from the maintainer" message, which is periodically posted to
 this mailing list after each feature release is made.
 
- - Feature releases are numbered as vX.Y.Z and are meant to
+ - Feature releases are numbered as vX.Y.0 and are meant to
    contain bugfixes and enhancements in any area, including
    functionality, performance and usability, without regression.
 
  - One release cycle for a feature release is expected to last for
    eight to ten weeks.
 
- - Maintenance releases are numbered as vX.Y.Z.W and are meant
-   to contain only bugfixes for the corresponding vX.Y.Z feature
-   release and earlier maintenance releases vX.Y.Z.V (V < W).
+ - Maintenance releases are numbered as vX.Y.Z and are meant
+   to contain only bugfixes for the corresponding vX.Y.0 feature
+   release and earlier maintenance releases vX.Y.W (W < Z).
 
  - 'master' branch is used to prepare for the next feature
    release. In other words, at some point, the tip of 'master'
-   branch is tagged with vX.Y.Z.
+   branch is tagged with vX.Y.0.
 
  - 'maint' branch is used to prepare for the next maintenance
-   release.  After the feature release vX.Y.Z is made, the tip
+   release.  After the feature release vX.Y.0 is made, the tip
    of 'maint' branch is set to that release, and bugfixes will
    accumulate on the branch, and at some point, the tip of the
-   branch is tagged with vX.Y.Z.1, vX.Y.Z.2, and so on.
+   branch is tagged with vX.Y.1, vX.Y.2, and so on.
 
  - 'next' branch is used to publish changes (both enhancements
    and fixes) that (1) have worthwhile goal, (2) are in a fairly
@@ -86,6 +86,10 @@ this mailing list after each feature release is made.
    users are encouraged to test it so that regressions and bugs
    are found before new topics are merged to 'master'.
 
+Note that before v1.9.0 release, the version numbers used to be
+structured slightly differently.  vX.Y.Z were feature releases while
+vX.Y.Z.W were maintenance releases for vX.Y.Z.
+
 
 A Typical Git Day
 -----------------

Re: [RFC/PATCH] howto/maintain-git.txt: new version numbering scheme

[Philip Oakley]

From: "Junio C Hamano" <gitster@pobox.com>
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2014 11:14 PM
> We wanted to call the upcoming release "Git 1.9", with its
> maintenance track being "Git 1.9.1", "Git 1.9.2", etc., but various
> third-party tools are reported to assume that there are at least
> three dewey-decimal components in our version number.
>
> Adjust the plan so that vX.Y.0 are feature releases while vX.Y.Z
> (Z > 0) are maintenance releases.
>
> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
> ---
>
> * Haven't committed to this outline, but I am raising a
>   weather-balloon to see reaction from the list.  Comments?

From a familiarity viewpoint the (my) expectation would be that a
colloquial "V1.9" would be 1.9.0 under the hood (that is, the version
string would say that).

If we are progressing from V1.9 to V2.0 quickly (one cycle?), which I
understand is the plan, then mixing the minor development items (patch
series which progress to master) with the maintenance fixes over the
next few months, thus only having 1.9.x releases, sounds reasonable.

If there is going to be separate maintenance fixes from the patch series
developments then keeping to the previous 1.9.x.y for maintenance would
be better.

Will the new rapid counting continue after V2.0, such that we get to
V2.9 -> V3.0 rather more quickly than V1.0 -> V2.0 ?

The key discriminator would be to say when V2.0 will be out for deciding
the V1.9 sequence.

My £0.02p

Philip

>
> Documentation/howto/maintain-git.txt | 18 +++++++++++-------
> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/howto/maintain-git.txt
> b/Documentation/howto/maintain-git.txt
> index 33ae69c..ca43787 100644
> --- a/Documentation/howto/maintain-git.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/howto/maintain-git.txt
> @@ -39,26 +39,26 @@ The policy on Integration is informally mentioned
> in "A Note
> from the maintainer" message, which is periodically posted to
> this mailing list after each feature release is made.
>
> - - Feature releases are numbered as vX.Y.Z and are meant to
> + - Feature releases are numbered as vX.Y.0 and are meant to
>    contain bugfixes and enhancements in any area, including
>    functionality, performance and usability, without regression.
>
>  - One release cycle for a feature release is expected to last for
>    eight to ten weeks.
>
> - - Maintenance releases are numbered as vX.Y.Z.W and are meant
> -   to contain only bugfixes for the corresponding vX.Y.Z feature
> -   release and earlier maintenance releases vX.Y.Z.V (V < W).
> + - Maintenance releases are numbered as vX.Y.Z and are meant
> +   to contain only bugfixes for the corresponding vX.Y.0 feature
> +   release and earlier maintenance releases vX.Y.W (W < Z).
>
>  - 'master' branch is used to prepare for the next feature
>    release. In other words, at some point, the tip of 'master'
> -   branch is tagged with vX.Y.Z.
> +   branch is tagged with vX.Y.0.
>
>  - 'maint' branch is used to prepare for the next maintenance
> -   release.  After the feature release vX.Y.Z is made, the tip
> +   release.  After the feature release vX.Y.0 is made, the tip
>    of 'maint' branch is set to that release, and bugfixes will
>    accumulate on the branch, and at some point, the tip of the
> -   branch is tagged with vX.Y.Z.1, vX.Y.Z.2, and so on.
> +   branch is tagged with vX.Y.1, vX.Y.2, and so on.
>
>  - 'next' branch is used to publish changes (both enhancements
>    and fixes) that (1) have worthwhile goal, (2) are in a fairly
> @@ -86,6 +86,10 @@ this mailing list after each feature release is
> made.
>    users are encouraged to test it so that regressions and bugs
>    are found before new topics are merged to 'master'.
>
> +Note that before v1.9.0 release, the version numbers used to be
> +structured slightly differently.  vX.Y.Z were feature releases while
> +vX.Y.Z.W were maintenance releases for vX.Y.Z.
> +
>
> A Typical Git Day
> -----------------
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>

Re: [RFC/PATCH] howto/maintain-git.txt: new version numbering scheme

[Junio C Hamano]

"Philip Oakley" <philipoakley@iee.org> writes:

> If we are progressing from V1.9 to V2.0 quickly (one cycle?), which I
> understand is the plan, then mixing the minor development items (patch
> series which progress to master) with the maintenance fixes over the
> next few months, thus only having 1.9.x releases, sounds reasonable.
>
> If there is going to be separate maintenance fixes from the patch series
> developments then keeping to the previous 1.9.x.y for maintenance would
> be better.
>
> Will the new rapid counting continue after V2.0, such that we get to
> V2.9 -> V3.0 rather more quickly than V1.0 -> V2.0 ?
>
> The key discriminator would be to say when V2.0 will be out for deciding
> the V1.9 sequence.

I do not quite follow.  The time distance between v1.9 and v2.0
should not affect anything.  If it is a long road, there may be
v1.10, v1.11, v1.12, ... before we have v2.0.  If not, v2.0 may
immediately follow v1.9 as a new feature release.  There may be
maintenance releases based on v1.9 that does not add any new
features.

Right now, if you count the maintenance releases, there are
potentially four kinds of version gaps:

 - Between v1.8.5 and v1.8.5.1, there are fixes but no new features;

 - Between v1.8.5 and v1.8.6, there are new features but no
   compatibility worries;

 - Between v1.8.6 and v1.9.0, there are new features, no
   compatibility worries, but somehow the jump is larger than the
   one between v1.8.5 and v1.8.6; and

 - Between v1.9.0 and v2.0.0, there are new features and also
   compatibility concerns.

Switching to 2-digit scheme and calling the upcoming one v1.9 (and
the next major one v2.0) was meant to make the naming more flat, as
the third item in the above list "somehow the jump is larger" does
not seem to add much value to the end users.  So the logical
numbering becomes more like this:

 - Between v1.9 and v1.9.1, there are fixes but no new features;

 - Between v1.9.x and v1.10, there are new features but no
   compatibility worries;

 - Between v1.9.x and v2.0, there are new features and also
   compatibility concerns.

With a twist, though.  There seem to be many places where at least
three digits are assumed to exist in our version numbers, so in
order to make life easier, the updated document says vX.Y (a feature
release) will identify itself as vX.Y.0

Re: [RFC/PATCH] howto/maintain-git.txt: new version numbering scheme

[Philip Oakley]

From: "Junio C Hamano" <gitster@pobox.com>
> "Philip Oakley" <philipoakley@iee.org> writes:
>
>> If we are progressing from V1.9 to V2.0 quickly (one cycle?), which I
>> understand is the plan, then mixing the minor development items 
>> (patch
>> series which progress to master) with the maintenance fixes over the
>> next few months, thus only having 1.9.x releases, sounds reasonable.
>>
>> If there is going to be separate maintenance fixes from the patch 
>> series
>> developments then keeping to the previous 1.9.x.y for maintenance 
>> would
>> be better.
>>
>> Will the new rapid counting continue after V2.0, such that we get to
>> V2.9 -> V3.0 rather more quickly than V1.0 -> V2.0 ?
>>
>> The key discriminator would be to say when V2.0 will be out for 
>> deciding
>> the V1.9 sequence.
>
> I do not quite follow.  The time distance between v1.9 and v2.0
> should not affect anything.  If it is a long road, there may be
> v1.10, v1.11, v1.12, ...

I wasn't sure if you were considering going past either 1.9.9 to 1.9.10, 
and going from 1.9 to 1.10 was something that hadn't occurred to me 
(somewhat of a Doh! moment maybe).


>            before we have v2.0.  If not, v2.0 may
> immediately follow v1.9 as a new feature release.  There may be
> maintenance releases based on v1.9 that does not add any new
> features.
>
> Right now, if you count the maintenance releases, there are
> potentially four kinds of version gaps:
>
> - Between v1.8.5 and v1.8.5.1, there are fixes but no new features;
>
> - Between v1.8.5 and v1.8.6, there are new features but no
>   compatibility worries;
>
> - Between v1.8.6 and v1.9.0, there are new features, no
>   compatibility worries, but somehow the jump is larger than the
>   one between v1.8.5 and v1.8.6; and
>
> - Between v1.9.0 and v2.0.0, there are new features and also
>   compatibility concerns.
>
> Switching to 2-digit scheme and calling the upcoming one v1.9 (and
> the next major one v2.0) was meant to make the naming more flat,

OK I'd buy that flattening approach.

>    as
> the third item in the above list "somehow the jump is larger" does
> not seem to add much value to the end users.  So the logical
> numbering becomes more like this:
>
> - Between v1.9 and v1.9.1, there are fixes but no new features;
>
> - Between v1.9.x and v1.10, there are new features but no
>   compatibility worries;
>
> - Between v1.9.x and v2.0, there are new features and also
>   compatibility concerns.
>
> With a twist, though.  There seem to be many places where at least
> three digits are assumed to exist in our version numbers, so in
> order to make life easier, the updated document says vX.Y (a feature
> release) will identify itself as vX.Y.0

Yes. I'd be happy to support that third 'digit' for the maint releases, 
with zero as the initial release.

Git Gui has a version string checking routine but its regex only needs 
two parts X.Y (we looked into the version string back in $gmane/217189

>
>

Thanks for the clarifications.
Philip.