← Back to team overview

kicad-developers team mailing list archive

Re: Strange program version numbering in KiCad


The problem with d & e is I do not think they address the user
interpretation of our version string.  Using "master" as a prefix or
suffix probably doesn't mean much to many users.  You may be expecting
users to be more informed about versioning than they actually are.


On 7/10/19 12:19 PM, Nick Østergaard wrote:
> d: keep it as is
> e: prepend the branch to what we currently have
> On Wed, 10 Jul 2019 at 17:55, Wayne Stambaugh <stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 7/9/19 4:49 PM, Carsten Schoenert wrote:
>>> 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.
>> I want to keep the sha hash so we know which commit was used to create
>> nightly builds.  While `git describe` isn't perfect, it does a pretty
>> good job of giving us the information we need.
>>> 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?
>> We do this in KiCadVersion.cmake but this is only used as a fallback
>> when git isn't available during config.
>>> And a prefix '6.0-dev' or 'master-dev' is always better than the current
>>> solution.
>> We abandoned the "-dev" suffix because package devs were complaining
>> that "6.0-dev" was causing packaging version comparison issues.  If that
>> is not the case, then we need to get a consensus among the package devs
>> for a solution that works for all platform package managers.  I'm
>> guessing the ".99" (or some other sufficiently large number) would work
>> and also make it clear to users that they are using a version newer than
>> the current stable version.
>> In short, we need a solution that
>> a: solves the packaging version comparison issue on all platforms
>> b: makes it clear to users that they are using a version greater than
>> the current stable release
>> c: provides the needed developer information on nightly builds
>> Am I missing anything here?
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

Follow ups