| |||||||||||||
Version numberingVersion numberingPosted Nov 2, 2011 10:57 UTC (Wed) by ovitters (subscriber, #27950)Parent article: OpenBSD 5.0
Pretty cool version numbering. Wondered why this was versioned as 5.0, but seem this is just due to the previous version being 4.9. Seems to just increment with 0.1, then at x.9, it will be x+1.0.
Keeping in mind all the discussions surrounding Firefox version numbering, seems OpenBSD have been doing pretty much the same for a long time now.
(Log in to post comments)
Version numbering Posted Nov 6, 2011 20:43 UTC (Sun) by robbe (guest, #16131) [Link]
Um, no. The OpenBSD scheme -- increment the subversion until it reaches some "high" number, then go to the next x.0 -- is pretty popular. The most well known recent usage hereabouts is Linux 2.6/3.0.
Firefox, OTOH, has cought the "our major version is meaningless, let's drop it" flu. Previous victims include Sun (SunOS/Solaris, Java) and GNU (Emacs). These always were suspected of version inflation.
MS Windows, to give another example, suffered from completely erratic "external" naming of the versions between 3.11 and 7. The internal versions were always sane.
Maybe naming releases after the number of cycles around the sun since the birth of some obscure religious emperor will also sound silly in the future -- who knows?
Version numbering Posted Nov 9, 2011 13:28 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
Emacs didn't just do 'let's drop it'. It did 'multiply by ten', something I don't think any other package ever has done.
But it hasn't exactly inflated its version numbers at stunning speed since then. I was using Emacs 19.34 back in 1996. Now? An Emacs 24 prerelease.
|
|||||||||||||