On 23 Apr 2003, Arto Huusko wrote:

> On Wed, 2003-04-23 at 20:05, Bill Studenmund wrote:
> > On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 keks@kibla.org wrote:
>
> Just to pop in quickly...
>
> > We choose to use numbers, as opposed to names, so that we can also convey
> > an ordering. We use a time-increasing sequence. We can thus know that
> > version 1.6Q is higher (newer) than 1.5Y or 1.4G. We also know that 1.6.1
> > is higher than 1.6 and 1.5.3 and 1.4.2.
>
> If "higher" == "newer", you can't say that 1.5.x is higher than 1.6.x.
> It's quite possible for, say, 1.5.4 be newer (as a release) than 1.6.1.
> This is very similar to the -current vs. -release numbering issue
> (as you said: versions on different branches are incomparable).

True.

But I think the big thing we have when comparing 1.5.4 and 1.6.1 (for
instance) is that folks KNOW they are confused about which is newer. With
the current current/lastest-release scheme, they don't realize they are
confused until it's too late.

> And people do get confused with things like this, too. When reading
> OS News, I see lots of people wondering why FreeBSD just released 5.0,
> and then soon afterwards 4.8. People simply don't get the idea of
> branches, and as someone else pointed, it needs to be understood.

True, branches need explaining for that to make sense. But as above, folks
realized they were confused. They didn't think they understood when they
didn't. :-)

> And while I'm here, I could just as well say my opinion on this: I think
> bumbing -current's version to "just_released + 1" is a good idea. So,
> we'd be now at 1.7R. And I don't think it's a problem if it is not known
> beforehand what the actual release will be called. If there won't be
> 1.7, fine. 1.7ZZZA just becomes 2.0 then (and -current 2.1A).

Yeah, it probably would be the cleanest.

Take care,

Bill