kicad-developers team mailing list archive

[Carl Poirier <carl.poirier.2@xxxxxxxxx>]

I feel like we wouldn't use the last digit much in a triplet number
because, IIRC, backporting of fixes is not planned. That being said, I
would also begin with at least 2.1, as Cirilo said.

However, I personally vote for numbering the versions a la MATLAB.

On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 1:34 AM, Nick Østergaard <oe.nick@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 2014-10-20 7:19 GMT+02:00 Cirilo Bernardo <cirilo.bernardo@xxxxxxxxx>:
> > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 8:58 AM, Wayne Stambaugh <stambaughw@xxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> In the past we have used the repo commit number as the stable version
> >> number.  I'm not sure this is the best idea as there can be overlapping
> >> commit numbers in separate branches.  I would like to propose using
> >> something that we can clearly identify as a release version to prevent
> >> confusion due to duplicate commit version numbers.  I recently committed
> >> the stable release policy to the developers documentation but I
> >> intentionally left out the version number section because I wanted to
> >> make sure we are on board with the idea.  It would make it clear to
> >> developers, users and packagers that they are using a stable release
> >> versus a development release.  It also makes it easier to name source
> >> and binary packages.  I'm perfectly happy using the good old fashioned
> >> numerical triplet (#.#.#).  It's easy for most version comparison
> >> functions to deal with.  I suggest for the next stable release we start
> >> at the beginning 1.0.0.  If no one objects, I will update the stable
> >> release policy and add the code to CMakeLists.txt before we get to the
> >> next stable release.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> Wayne
> >
> >
> > I'm not in favor of 1.0.0 because this suggests that this is the first
> > release after Beta.
> > KiCad has a much longer history of  productive use.  I think at least
> 2.1.x
> > - 2 because
> > this is very different from what many Linux distributions consider as the
> > last KiCad
> > stable (old pcb format) and .1 because there has also been a revision of
> the
> > new
> > pcb file format to support 32 copper + 32 tech layers. I don't really
> have
> > any strong
> > preference for the '.1' part, but we definitely need at least '2' for the
> > major version;
> > humans are funny creatures and tend to associate version 1 with an
> inferior
> > product.
> >
> > - Cirilo
>
> I am actually also in favor of the 2 in the major version, just after
> the fact that KiCad has had releases before, and that it has all these
> major changes we all love.
>
> Nick
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> Post to     : kicad-developers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>