4 ms·

I wish Debian would adopt Ubuntu-like versioning number: "yy.mm". So easy to understand. Another good example is TeXLive, which simply uses "yyyy". Much better.

by chj 9y ago

tonyedgecombe 9y ago
I wish most software would switch to this, I really don't like semantic versioning.
- pvdebbe 9y ago
  Semantic versioning makes sense for libraries, not so much for user-facing applications.
  - lucideer 9y ago
    I used to agree with the point about year-based versioning, but I've changed my tune and I don't think this point about libraries is completely true either. If you look at what semantic -vs- date-based versioning communicates to end-users of normal user-facing apps: Date-based: - how recently it's been released - not much else The above is useful if you are interested in being up-to-date on a piece of software you know and trust, or in trying out new / cutting edge software. Semantic: - a (very) rough idea of how long it's been in development for (number of versions its gone through) - a (similarly, very) rough idea of how active the development effort is in terms of testing/maintentance/bug-fixes/patches (i.e. major version churn -vs- minor version churn -vs- patch version churn - the likely relative stability of the current release (e.g. 2.0.0 might be less stable than 2.0.4) All of the above may be rough and may give false impressions sometimes, but it is still extremely useful as an indicator for any relatively technical user evaluating whether or not to use or upgrade a piece of software. Less technical users are less likely to be as interested in version numbers full stop.
    - vacri 9y ago
      If a project actually follows semver, then you know that unless the first number changes, there won't be any (significant) backwards-incompatible changes - eg, your config files will still work as expected.
      - pvdebbe 9y ago
        This is the major obstacle with semver. People aren't terribly psyched to increase the major version whenever incompatibilities happen, because other people have different expectations of major version numbers.
vacri 9y ago
Ubuntu has made the commitment for 6-month releases, so that makes sense for them. Debian releases "are ready when they're ready", so they can't predict the month (or even the year) ahead of time, and the version number is needed well before the release is made official.
- rlpb 9y ago
  ...and the version number is needed well before the release is made official. Ubuntu developer here. No, the version number is not needed before the release. All our infrastructure only uses the codename until release, since the final version name is not known for certain in advance. For example, Ubuntu 6.06 LTS (Dapper Drake) was released late.
duskwuff 9y ago
That wouldn't work. Debian publishes minor updates to older release "branches"; naming those after the date they were released would make it impossible to distinguish the branches. For instance, Debian 9 was released in June 2017, followed by the release of 8.9 the next month as a minor update for users still running Debian 8.

I wish Debian would adopt Ubuntu-like versioning number: "yy.mm". So easy to understand. Another good example is TeXLive, which simply uses "yyyy". Much better.

by chj 9y ago

I wish Debian would adopt Ubuntu-like versioning number: "yy.mm". So easy to understand. Another good example is TeXLive, which simply uses "yyyy". Much better.

tonyedgecombe 9y ago

I wish most software would switch to this, I really don't like semantic versioning.

pvdebbe 9y ago
Semantic versioning makes sense for libraries, not so much for user-facing applications.
- lucideer 9y ago
  I used to agree with the point about year-based versioning, but I've changed my tune and I don't think this point about libraries is completely true either. If you look at what semantic -vs- date-based versioning communicates to end-users of normal user-facing apps: Date-based: - how recently it's been released - not much else The above is useful if you are interested in being up-to-date on a piece of software you know and trust, or in trying out new / cutting edge software. Semantic: - a (very) rough idea of how long it's been in development for (number of versions its gone through) - a (similarly, very) rough idea of how active the development effort is in terms of testing/maintentance/bug-fixes/patches (i.e. major version churn -vs- minor version churn -vs- patch version churn - the likely relative stability of the current release (e.g. 2.0.0 might be less stable than 2.0.4) All of the above may be rough and may give false impressions sometimes, but it is still extremely useful as an indicator for any relatively technical user evaluating whether or not to use or upgrade a piece of software. Less technical users are less likely to be as interested in version numbers full stop.
  - vacri 9y ago
    If a project actually follows semver, then you know that unless the first number changes, there won't be any (significant) backwards-incompatible changes - eg, your config files will still work as expected.
    - pvdebbe 9y ago
      This is the major obstacle with semver. People aren't terribly psyched to increase the major version whenever incompatibilities happen, because other people have different expectations of major version numbers.

vacri 9y ago

Ubuntu has made the commitment for 6-month releases, so that makes sense for them. Debian releases "are ready when they're ready", so they can't predict the month (or even the year) ahead of time, and the version number is needed well before the release is made official.

rlpb 9y ago
...and the version number is needed well before the release is made official. Ubuntu developer here. No, the version number is not needed before the release. All our infrastructure only uses the codename until release, since the final version name is not known for certain in advance. For example, Ubuntu 6.06 LTS (Dapper Drake) was released late.

duskwuff 9y ago

That wouldn't work. Debian publishes minor updates to older release "branches"; naming those after the date they were released would make it impossible to distinguish the branches. For instance, Debian 9 was released in June 2017, followed by the release of 8.9 the next month as a minor update for users still running Debian 8.