| Thread Previous • Date Previous • Date Next • Thread Next |
Den 12-05-2010 21:04, Michael Widenius skrev:
>>>>> "Peter" == Peter Zaitsev<pz@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:Peter> Henrik, Peter> 5.2.47 is a lot more clear for me though it relays on the fact MySQL chose Peter> not to release 5.2 themselves Yes. Peter> What are you going to do with 5.5 as it comes out ? Create 5.6 and hope Peter> MySQL will never release such a version ? It depends on how fast MySQL 5.6 comes out. As this is 2+ years in the future, we don't have to concern ourselves with that now. We can always use something like MariaDB 5.5b.1, 5.5c.1.
It sounds like there will be a number problem no matter what we do. For example, we just had to release 5.1.44b, which is our second 5.1.44 based release. This means we have a line like 5.1.39, 5.1.42, 5.1.44, 5.1.44b, 5.1.46... That's awful as well, but it's bound to happen whenever we track the patch number of MySQL.
You can't even assume that people understand that our 5.1.44 release includes the complete MySQL 5.1.44. This was *very* clear from talking to people that the MySQL conference. The version number does not tell people what we think it should.
No matter what we do, there will be some problem with the version numbers, and some story to tell people. To me this says we should do something clean and simple.
I would like to suggest going back to a version numbers scheme for 5.2 starting with 5.2.0 and increase the patch level on each release of it. We can add "Includes MySQL 5.1.46" on top of the download pages, the man pages, the help text and version number of the binary etc.
If we try to get cute or clever with the version numbers, we will still fail to get a clean message across. It's impossible to fix this with a number sequence, so don't try. We should keep the version numbers as well as the story as simple as possible.
I'm a big KISS fan. Bo.
| Thread Previous • Date Previous • Date Next • Thread Next |
