5 ms·

Just adopt semver. Stop romanticizing a version number. Give big releases a flowery names if that's important to you. Leave the version number as something with

by Touche 12y ago

Just adopt semver. Stop romanticizing a version number. Give big releases a flowery names if that's important to you. Leave the version number as something with specific meaning.

cremno 12y ago
Linux actually has/had flowery names: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Linux_kernel_names https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Linux_kernel_names
- philh 12y ago
  That page is almost as much fun as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spacecraft_in_the_Culture_series http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spacecraft_in_the_Cultu... .
pdpi 12y ago
Not sure whether semver makes sense at the kernel level. E.g. I was under the impression that maintaining drivers outside the kernel was a fool's errand because the interface keeps changing.
- Qantourisc 12y ago
  Imo the change of such an interface warrants a version bump . They should not be doing it often anyway. As a result this will reset the minor version number once in a while.
pothibo 12y ago
This kind of comment just show ignorance. The kernel has been around for a few decades while semver has been around for what, 3 years now? Maybe it will adopt semver at some stage. I doubt it because the API is way too complex and broad to be covered in simple x.x.x notation, think of driver updates on vendors.
- Touche 12y ago
  This is not a fair statement. I didn't say the kernel should have been using semver 20 years ago, I said they should use it now. It exists now; it's good.
- current_call 12y ago
  The kernel has been around for a few decades while semver has been around for what, 3 years now? That's irrelevant. I doubt it because the API is way too complex and broad to be covered in simple x.x.x notation They don't use that notation now?
ayrx 12y ago
Semver isn't the one and only way of versioning stuff. Heck, it's a pretty ridiculous model for projects that do releases based on time rather than features...
- Touche 12y ago
  Sure, my point was not that semver is the best, my point was that version numbers aren't a product name, they should be scientific. Whether it's semver or date-based, as long as it obeys rules so that people using your product can easily distinguish versions.
  - palmer_eldritch 12y ago
    > version numbers aren't a product name, they should be scientific That's your opinion. It seems there's a lot of people in the software industry with a different opinion. I'm not saying it isn't a good thing when version numbers are meaningful. But that's not always the case and even when it's the case, you'd better check what it means for a particular project. There's no generic "scientific" rule about version numbers.
IshKebab 12y ago
That only makes sense for projects that even try to maintain a stable API. Linux doesn't. If Linux used semantic versioning we'd be up to at least version 200.0 by now.
- pilif 12y ago
  That really depends on the viewpoint. The user-space APIs are stable and the Kernel project is going great lengths to ensure that userspace is never broken (any breakage is treated as a bug). So if you look at the userspace interface as the API semver would work against, we'd be at 1.0.1234 or something.
- Touche 12y ago
  > If Linux used semantic versioning we'd be up to at least version 200.0 by now. So what? 200 makes sense for software as old and consistently maintained as the Linux kernel. What is with the need of people to keep version numbers low?

by Touche 12y ago

Just adopt semver. Stop romanticizing a version number. Give big releases a flowery names if that's important to you. Leave the version number as something with specific meaning.

cremno 12y ago

Linux actually has/had flowery names: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Linux_kernel_names https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Linux_kernel_names

philh 12y ago
That page is almost as much fun as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spacecraft_in_the_Culture_series http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spacecraft_in_the_Cultu... .

pdpi 12y ago

Not sure whether semver makes sense at the kernel level. E.g. I was under the impression that maintaining drivers outside the kernel was a fool's errand because the interface keeps changing.

Qantourisc 12y ago
Imo the change of such an interface warrants a version bump . They should not be doing it often anyway. As a result this will reset the minor version number once in a while.

pothibo 12y ago

This kind of comment just show ignorance. The kernel has been around for a few decades while semver has been around for what, 3 years now? Maybe it will adopt semver at some stage. I doubt it because the API is way too complex and broad to be covered in simple x.x.x notation, think of driver updates on vendors.

Touche 12y ago
This is not a fair statement. I didn't say the kernel should have been using semver 20 years ago, I said they should use it now. It exists now; it's good.
current_call 12y ago
The kernel has been around for a few decades while semver has been around for what, 3 years now? That's irrelevant. I doubt it because the API is way too complex and broad to be covered in simple x.x.x notation They don't use that notation now?

ayrx 12y ago

Semver isn't the one and only way of versioning stuff. Heck, it's a pretty ridiculous model for projects that do releases based on time rather than features...

Touche 12y ago
Sure, my point was not that semver is the best, my point was that version numbers aren't a product name, they should be scientific. Whether it's semver or date-based, as long as it obeys rules so that people using your product can easily distinguish versions.
- palmer_eldritch 12y ago
  > version numbers aren't a product name, they should be scientific That's your opinion. It seems there's a lot of people in the software industry with a different opinion. I'm not saying it isn't a good thing when version numbers are meaningful. But that's not always the case and even when it's the case, you'd better check what it means for a particular project. There's no generic "scientific" rule about version numbers.

IshKebab 12y ago

That only makes sense for projects that even try to maintain a stable API. Linux doesn't. If Linux used semantic versioning we'd be up to at least version 200.0 by now.

pilif 12y ago
That really depends on the viewpoint. The user-space APIs are stable and the Kernel project is going great lengths to ensure that userspace is never broken (any breakage is treated as a bug). So if you look at the userspace interface as the API semver would work against, we'd be at 1.0.1234 or something.
Touche 12y ago
> If Linux used semantic versioning we'd be up to at least version 200.0 by now. So what? 200 makes sense for software as old and consistently maintained as the Linux kernel. What is with the need of people to keep version numbers low?