OpenSSH 5.0 released
OpenSSH 5.0 released
Posted Apr 4, 2008 0:19 UTC (Fri) by nix (subscriber, #2304)In reply to: OpenSSH 5.0 released by clugstj
Parent article: OpenSSH 5.0 released
OpenSSH 4.0 wasn't particularly exciting, either. OpenSSH (and OpenBSD as well to some degree) seem to treat version numbers like integers divided by ten, so that 5.0 is just 'the version after 4.9'.
Posted Apr 4, 2008 0:29 UTC (Fri)
by djm (subscriber, #11651)
[Link] (14 responses)
Posted Apr 4, 2008 1:03 UTC (Fri)
by nix (subscriber, #2304)
[Link] (3 responses)
Posted Apr 4, 2008 7:46 UTC (Fri)
by coriordan (guest, #7544)
[Link]
Posted Apr 8, 2008 1:31 UTC (Tue)
by jengelh (guest, #33263)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Apr 8, 2008 6:00 UTC (Tue)
by nix (subscriber, #2304)
[Link]
Posted Apr 4, 2008 1:25 UTC (Fri)
by ttrafford (guest, #15383)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Apr 4, 2008 3:11 UTC (Fri)
by drag (guest, #31333)
[Link]
Posted Apr 4, 2008 8:31 UTC (Fri)
by nix (subscriber, #2304)
[Link]
Posted Apr 4, 2008 5:29 UTC (Fri)
by qu1j0t3 (guest, #25786)
[Link] (6 responses)
Posted Apr 4, 2008 14:00 UTC (Fri)
by elanthis (guest, #6227)
[Link] (5 responses)
Posted Apr 4, 2008 15:10 UTC (Fri)
by beoba (guest, #16942)
[Link] (4 responses)
Posted Apr 4, 2008 15:45 UTC (Fri)
by jospoortvliet (guest, #33164)
[Link]
Posted Apr 4, 2008 15:47 UTC (Fri)
by rsidd (subscriber, #2582)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Apr 5, 2008 7:37 UTC (Sat)
by djm (subscriber, #11651)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Apr 6, 2008 22:13 UTC (Sun)
by smoogen (subscriber, #97)
[Link]
OpenSSH 5.0 released
Yes, for some time we have maintained a very incremental development model so we treat our
version number as a simple counter. Otherwise we would be forever at version 2.x, which
doesn't really reflect the real progress that does occur.
OpenSSH 5.0 released
I don't know, that might work. Some projects are forever at version 2.6.x,
and they seem to do all right ;}
emacs 22
The GNU Emacs developers were stuck on version 1.x for years, so they eventually just droped
the "1." and went straight from version 1.12 to version 13. They're up to version 22.2 now
:-)
OpenSSH 5.0 released
When was the last time there were significant just the basic parsing, no DOM/SAX voodoo in
libxml 2.6?!
OpenSSH 5.0 released
Well, libxml 2.6 only came out in 2003, so I'm not sure this counts. (Also
there's not a commitment to pretty much never bump the version again.)
:)
OpenSSH 5.0 released
"we treat our version number as a simple counter"
Any reason it's not just version "50" then?
OpenSSH 5.0 released
Because the . is just what they've used?
It's not unusual for the number releases to change their level of importance as a project
matures. The x.0 may have mattered more in the past, but it doesn't mean so much anymore.
OpenSSH 5.0 released
That would be too much like less ;)
(really they're emulating Emacs. 1.3, 1.4, 15, 16, 17... ;P )
um...
But when "real progress" occurs, that's exactly when you DO bump the major number!
By making the same increment for all changes, whether "one security fix" or "6 months of heavy
development", you're reducing the informational value (at least in common practice) that is
implied, for example, in the bump from 4.9.0 to 4.9.1 compared to 4.9.1 to 5.0.
Disclaimer: Of course reading the version number does not substitute for reading the release
notes. :)
um...
But does it really matter? All you really need to know is, "new version is out, it has more
features and/or bug fixes, probably time to upgrade."
It definitely matters.
In many cases, yes. For example, Python 3.x is not planned to be compatible with 2.x. Same
with PHP 4.x vs PHP 5.x, or Apache 1.x vs Apache 2.x. There are lots of cases where a change
in major version number means "features have changed, you will need to reconfigure".
I'd much rather be able to just follow standard version syntax rather than have to memorize
which incremental updates are the ones that are likely to disrupt things. Who wants to spend
their time memorizing that foo 1.2 -> 1.3 involves a complete rewrite, while foo 1.3 -> 1.4 is
only fixing some documentation?
Heck, even a date-string (foo-YYYYMMDD) would be more useful, because then you'd at least get
some indication of "this is the first release in a year, so there are likely some major
changes".
It definitely matters.
Indeed. I would be much more careful to upgrade from 4.9 to 5.0 than from 5.0 to 5.1 or 5.1 to
5.1.1, yet it seems for OpenSSH you can simply never tell the size of the changes by version
number... Which is pretty annoying.
It definitely matters.
Another example: OpenSSH 1.x -> OpenSSH 2.x. Of course, they were following the lead of
commercial SSH in this.
It definitely matters.
Cranking the major version mattered back when we were making major functional improvements or
incompatible change. OpenSSH 2.0 brought in SSH protocol version 2 support for the first time.
OpenSSH 3.0 changed some defaults in a way that could affect some users.
Nowadays OpenSSH is a mature product, so we just increment the version when we do a timed
(~every 6 months) release.
It definitely matters.
Thankyou for the multiple explanations djm.