Re: Big GDK cleanup

[Owen Taylor <otaylor redhat com>]

Owen Taylor <otaylor redhat com> writes:

> Tim Janik <timj gtk org> writes:
> 
> > if you think another binary and source compatible release with additional
> > API is a worthwhile and reachable goal in say 6-9 months, that can certainly
> > be persued, but it'll not be named 2.2 or 3.0 since that changes the .so name.
> > so, say we we have released 6 or maybe even 12 updates of 2.0 after those 6-9
> > months (i.e. 2.0.6 or 2.0.12), if at that point we want to make another binary
> > compatible release with a giant leap in source interfaces, we could do
> > something like 2.0.50 (like e.g. gnome-libs in the 1.0.x branch).
> 
> That's a nice, logical, view.  Unfortunately, marketing is not
> nice and logical. 
> 
>  1.0.0  introduced new features
>  1.0.x  ... didn't
>  1.2.0  introduced new features
>  1.2.x  ... didn't
>  2.0.0  introduced new features
>  2.0.x  ... didn't
>  2.0.50 .. did????
> 
> While we may think telling about binary compatibility is the best 
> use of our version numbers, to the outside world, being
> stuck at 2.0.xxx forever several years will look like we
> are making progress no and there is no pressing reason to upgrade
> to the new versions. (It's the Perl 5.005 syndrome, more or less.)

Another thing to point out here ... if we were to use 2.0.x version
numbers, what would we call our development releases? 2.0.49?

We pretty much need the 2.1.x version numbers for this unless we want
to start doing 2.0.49.x or some such scheme, which strikes me as
utterly unclear...
   
                                        Owen