Version Numbering

[David T.]

My vote doesn’t count for much, but for me Fundamental.Major.Minor makes the most sense. 

David R.’s designation (Major.Minor.Point) also works for me, though—and following convention is something I think is worth an awful lot. There’s something to be said for matching general expectations.

David T.


On Mar 28, 2015, at 4:02 PM, Chris Good <chris.good at ozemail.com.au> wrote:

> Hi All,
> 
> I've asked for people to give their opinions on a GnuCash version numbering
> system as, from my few small documentation contributions, I think this
> should be defined somewhere.
> 
> I'll summarise what I've observed so far now that's it's been a week.
> 
> There has been some good input about what the 3 segments of the GnuCash
> version number should be used for, although there is no general consensus
> and some people are OK to leave the decision till later, or maybe decide if
> the first 1 or 2 segments should change on a case by case basis.
> 
> We don't seem to be getting anywhere picking names for the 3 segments of the
> version number, particularly the first segment.
> We've had the following suggestions (in no particular order):
> 
> First Level:
> 	Major
> 	Architecture
> 	Global
> 	Fundamental
> 	Framework
> 	Basic
> 	Base (I'm throwing this into the ring here)
> Second Level:
> 	Major
> 	Minor
> Third Level:
> 	Minor
> 	Micro
> 	Bugfix
> 	Point
> 	Revision
> 	Patch
> 
> Have I missed any?
> 
> I think it is generally agreed, (from the small number of opinions
> expressed so far), that level 2 should be Major and level 3 should be Minor.
> Can everyone that has an opinion please let us know, particularly regarding
> the level 1 name?
> 
> Regards,
> Chris Good
> _______________________________________________
> gnucash-devel mailing list
> gnucash-devel at gnucash.org
> https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel