github release procedure

[Jonathan M Davis]

On Friday, January 04, 2013 21:10:32 Rob T wrote:
> On Friday, 4 January 2013 at 19:59:19 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > Really? Why on earth would you think that 2.062 was greater
> > than 2.062.1?
> 
> I was asking for clarity so that no one can possibly get confused.
> 
> If you look at the download page, the .0 is missing on some of
> the packages, but shows up as a -0 on some of the others, and
> that is simply confusing and totally unnecessary. If it is
> necessary for some reason, then it needs to be explained.
> 
> > Also, I believe that it's very common with Linux packages (and
> > probably the
> > projects themselves) to do that sort of versioning where
> > there's never a .0
> > and the last part only gets added when you actually get a .1.
> 
> There's no law that states that we must follow old conventions.

True, but you also shouldn't do something different just to do something 
different. You need a good reason.

I think that it's pretty ugly to have 2.062.0, and in my experience, that's a 
very abnormal thing to do. You have 2.062 followed by 2.062.1 if you ever have 
any point releases, but you don't start with .0. I don't recall ever seeing 
that before.

And the fact that with have -0 on the latest release on the download page is
downright bizarre too. I don't think that I've ever seen -0 before either. I'd
expect you to add the -1 if you ever need one but not start with -0. And
actually, looking at my Linux box now, it looks like Arch starts with -1, not
-0. I don't know what other distros do.

Regardless, I'm not at all in favor of having .0 on any release. Only add
the minor versions to releases which are minor versions, not to the major
ones.

- Jonathan M Davis