kicad-developers team mailing list archive

[Carsten Schoenert <c.schoenert@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello Nick,

Am 09.07.19 um 21:57 schrieb Nick Østergaard:
> I have a hard time to understand how  5.99 is better to describe a 
> development version. 6.00 was already a bad way to describe it.
> People also were confused. To me .99 seems very arbitrary. Why not
> .1234?
simply your mind is interpreting this different than .99. ;)

GTK+ is doing this scheme with .90 to .99 for quite a while and this is
*oneway* to do it.

https://blog.gtk.org/2016/09/01/versioning-and-long-term-stability-promise-in-gtk/

KiCad is not the first project that needs to find it's own agreement on
the versioning. (And wont be the last.)

I'm personally not that happy with the usage of the 'git describe'
command and the reading of tags from the tree. It was never a good
approach in my eyes and it is currently really horrible for users to
interpret the numbering schema. Even the current HEAD on the stable
branch has a wrong number starting with.

Why not hard-code the prefix within the CMake scripting voodoo like done
in probably the majority of recent project that using autotools for
configuration and add the commit count and id as a suffix like done now
already?

And a prefix '6.0-dev' or 'master-dev' is always better than the current
solution.

-- 
Regards
Carsten Schoenert