0 in version number?

Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d at puremagic.com
Fri Oct 16 19:27:20 PDT 2015


On Saturday, 17 October 2015 at 02:11:42 UTC, Israel wrote:
> Well sure, removing the 0 wouldnt cut it but at least 
> incrementing it would make D seem more consistent across the 
> board. 2.069 seems like D is all weirded out.
>
> Maybe incrementing the version number like 2.070, 2.080, 2.100, 
> 2.120, 2.125, 2.135, would make ALOT more sense.

I don't see how. The number is jumping all over the place. I 
think that it's pretty clear that the first 0 in 2.069.0 is a 
placeholder so that digits don't have to be added when it hits 
2.100.x. That's done all the time with file names, even if it's 
less common with version numbers.

Regardless, I really do think that talking about messing with 
that 0 is total bikeshedding. If we decide that we want to go to 
a different versioning scheme for whatever reason, then we'd end 
up with something different, and maybe it wouldn't have that 0, 
but simply removing that zero really doesn't change anything 
except that it makes our version numbers less consistent.

In any case, I have a lot better things to do than discuss 
removing a 0 from the version number just because it's less 
common to do version numbers that way. Discussing a solid 
proposal on a different versioning scheme along with whatever 
release process would go with it would be one thing, but talking 
about an extra 0 in the version number? I waste too much time 
talking here rather than coding as it is. I probably shouldn't 
have commented in this thread in the first place.

- Jonathan M Davis


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list