Re: [AD] moving 4.3 branch to 4.9

[Elias Pschernig <elias@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 2007-05-21 at 14:18 -0300, Victor wrote:
> We already have some confusion. Version reuse will indeed confuse
> everyone even more. Let's say we get a bug report and the user says
> it's version is 4.3.0. So someone reply: "Which 4.3.0 version?" This
> could be confusing even for Allegro developers.
> It is much better to skip some version numbers rather than reusing
> them.
> If it is not wrong to skip from 4.3.x to 4.9.x. So why should we reuse
> version numbers?
> By the way skipping to 4.3.5 and start reuse 4.3.0 is still much worse,
> as it is possible that 4.3.0 goes to 4.3.1, 4.3.2, 4.3.3, 4.3.4 and get
> another 4.3.5. Really a bad idea. No one will know what the version
> number means simply because it will not mean anything more! That is
> light-years more confusing than skipping to 4.9.x, and completely
> useless.
> 
> I thought that the Java version 1.4.2 to 5.0==1.5.0 was the most stupid
> and confusing numbering scheme i ever saw. But please, be careful to
> not create anything even worse!
> 

Here's all the versions, including what Matthew said, I don't think it's
confusing:

4.0.x... this was stable versions some years ago
4.1.x... this was WIP versions some years ago

4.2.0 this was the first stable 4.2.x version
4.2.1 the current stable version

[4.3.0 misnamed, should have been 4.9.0]
[4.3.1 misnamed, should have been 4.9.1]
[4.3.2 skipped]
[4.4.4 skipped]
4.3.5 next WIP version
4.3.6 next WIP after that
4.3.x ... possibly other WIPs

4.4.0 this will be the first stable version resulting from 4.3.x WIP
4.4.1 first bug fix releases
4.4.x ... maybe more to follow

[4.9.0 never existed, was 4.3.0 instead]
[4.9.1 never existed, was 4.3.1 instead]
4.9.2 WIP version for the next major allegro
4.9.3 WIP after that
4.9.x... hopefully lots of WIPs soon

5.0.0 Stable release from 4.9.x branch, once we get the minimum API
      stable.

-- 
Elias Pschernig