maria-developers team mailing list archive

["Adam M. Dutko" <dutko.adam@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 3:47 AM, Kristian Nielsen
<knielsen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:

> Colin Charles <colin@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > On 25 Mar 2010, at 02:09, Daniel Bartholomew wrote:
> >
> >> If so, my thinking is that the first 5.2 release will be called
> >> "5.2.1"
> >> and then go up from there.
> >
> >
> > This is the only logical way forward
> >
> > We can then say "5.2.1 branched from MySQL 5.x" (for example)
> >
> > We've got to be clear where we've pulled things from, because some
> > things might be fixed in later versions of MySQL. Also in case there
> > are changes (i.e. that may affect folk upgrading), its really
> > important to know where things are branched from
> >
> > Its also good that we "deviate" from their numbering. Putting on a
> > marketing hat, it does sound like we're doing well with a greater
> > version number (ok, I don't necessarily believe this, but I was semi-
> > convinced when I heard the explanation given to me by the marketing
> > folk at MySQL - it helps CIOs think, maybe)
>
> I don't want a marketing hat :)
>
> But from a technical point of view I just want to make it clear that there
> is
> no difference in this respect between MariaDB 5.1 and MariaDB 5.2. The only
> meaningful difference between 5.1 and 5.2 is that at some point we stopped
> adding features to 5.1 to make a stable release, and thus all additions
> that
> are not bugfixes are now called 5.2.
>
> But in terms of numbering from 1,2,3 or from corresponding MySQL versions,
> there is no difference. Any argument for one or the other numbering applies
> equally to both 5.1 and 5.2. The merging from MySQL is identical.
>
> So the consistent way would be to release 5.2.44, 5.2.45, ...
>
> (On the other hand there may be other reasons to prefer 5.2.1, 5.2.2, fine
> with
> me. We can't go back to MariaDB 5.1.1, but for MariaDB 5.2 we can choose).
>
>  - Kristian.
>

If we're always pulling from a mysql stable release and porting their
features/patches why not always be a minor number above them?

Say they release 5.2 ... we've added their patches from 5.2 but also added
other community pieces, improvements and bug fixes...it seems to make sense
to then release MariaDB 5.3.  Staying one minor above seems meaningful
because we have all 5.2 functionality of MySQL but extra patches and maybe
more features from the community and it isn't confusing to me.  What might
be a bit confusing is when you start talking minor minor numbers like 5.2.1
vs 5.2.2.  We could reserve the minor minor numbers for patch updates/fixes?
 I think Linus decided to abandon the even/odd stable/unstable game with
Linux 2.6.x and from there they've been incrementing the minor minor number
to indicate patch releases.

CIO's would also probably hear...5.3 vs 5.2...then think, that's a no
brainer!  Let's choose MariaDB!  :-)

Just my two cents.

Also, is there a better term than minor minor number to describe the three
in 5.2.3 ?