5 ms·

It's interesting that Rust is starting to use the same version-naming scheme that ECMAScript and Ubuntu did, being year-based. Personally I think Ubuntu's namin

by sbjs 8y ago

It's interesting that Rust is starting to use the same version-naming scheme that ECMAScript and Ubuntu did, being year-based. Personally I think Ubuntu's naming scheme and release schedule is the best, releasing $N times per year and naming it $YY.$N, where N is the same each year. This has a host of benefits: it's obvious how old any given version is, it's predictable when a new version will be released, it helps prevent development from stalling for any reason, especially unnecessary-rewrites and way-too-big-features, and more!

steveklabnik 8y ago
ECMAScript was certainly a huge influence here; TC39's influence may go even farther in the future: http://smallcultfollowing.com/babysteps/blog/2018/06/20/proposal-for-a-staged-rfc-process/ http://smallcultfollowing.com/babysteps/blog/2018/06/20/prop... What's funny is, it kinda goes both ways: I've recently spent a bunch of time talking to some TC39 members, and they have been talking a lot about a roadmap process that kinda looks like ours, while we've been talking about making our RFC process be a little closer to the "staged" concept that they have. Very interesting times! Most importantly though, it had a lot of influence because they have similar stability constraints as we do; I mentioned C++ and Java in the post, but maybe should have mentioned ECMAScript as well.
nothrabannosir 8y ago
Ubuntu's release names are not $YY.$N but $YY.$M (as in month), fwiw. Agreed that it's a great scheme.
- xyzzy_plugh 8y ago
  And for a while now, even numbered years released in April are always LTS. No surprises.
dmoreno 8y ago
AKA calendar versioning. I also love it. http://calver.org/ http://calver.org/.
- eindiran 8y ago
  Interesting, I did not know that this was a thing. That document lays out some of the potential advantages quite well.
ameliaquining 8y ago
Rust's version numbering is semver-based and will remain so. The year-based scheme is for epochs, which are mostly orthogonal to versions (each new epoch will require the latest version, but each new version will support every existing epoch). Rust does follow a time-based release schedule, though (a new stable release every six weeks), and it does have many of those advantages.

by sbjs 8y ago

steveklabnik 8y ago

ECMAScript was certainly a huge influence here; TC39's influence may go even farther in the future: http://smallcultfollowing.com/babysteps/blog/2018/06/20/proposal-for-a-staged-rfc-process/ http://smallcultfollowing.com/babysteps/blog/2018/06/20/prop... What's funny is, it kinda goes both ways: I've recently spent a bunch of time talking to some TC39 members, and they have been talking a lot about a roadmap process that kinda looks like ours, while we've been talking about making our RFC process be a little closer to the "staged" concept that they have. Very interesting times! Most importantly though, it had a lot of influence because they have similar stability constraints as we do; I mentioned C++ and Java in the post, but maybe should have mentioned ECMAScript as well.

nothrabannosir 8y ago

Ubuntu's release names are not $YY.$N but $YY.$M (as in month), fwiw. Agreed that it's a great scheme.

xyzzy_plugh 8y ago
And for a while now, even numbered years released in April are always LTS. No surprises.

dmoreno 8y ago

AKA calendar versioning. I also love it. http://calver.org/ http://calver.org/.

eindiran 8y ago
Interesting, I did not know that this was a thing. That document lays out some of the potential advantages quite well.

ameliaquining 8y ago

Rust's version numbering is semver-based and will remain so. The year-based scheme is for epochs, which are mostly orthogonal to versions (each new epoch will require the latest version, but each new version will support every existing epoch). Rust does follow a time-based release schedule, though (a new stable release every six weeks), and it does have many of those advantages.