Re: [avr-libc-dev] [RFC] 1.0 branch

[Joerg Wunsch]

As Theodore A. Roth wrote:

> Since things have been quiet for a while, I think it might be time to
> cut a 1.0 branch.

Good idea.  So let's finally ship something that is marked `release'
again.

> I'm partial to the even-odd version number used with the linux kernel
> and many other projects. Basically, <major>.<minor>.<patch>, where
> minor being odd denotes a development branch and minor being even
> denotes a stable branch. Thus, 1.0 will be stable and 1.1.x is
> development.

I'm not that thrilled about two-dot version numbers.  We've been there
in the FreeBSD project as well, but then found that it makes more
sense to have single-dot releases by default, with the .patch version
only supplied if absolutely necessary.  Otherwise, the major==1 will
probably become a constant. ;-)  Also, i think it doesn't make sense
to reserve an entire branch for development.  Just make the head of
CVS for development (and make devel snapshots from there), and make
one release earlier the stable branch.

I'm not religious about this however, if anybody else is happy with
the Linux kernel variant, go for it.   You probably won't hear much
from me for the next couple of weeks afterwards, because i'll leave
early tomorrow for a (not too long) vacation.
-- 
J"org Wunsch                                           Unix support engineer
address@hidden        http://www.interface-systems.de/~j/