On Fri 2015-05-29 11:19:17 -0400, intrigeri wrote:
> it popped up to my mind that our current versioning scheme is a bit
> painful whenever we need to insert an unexpected release: e.g.
> when we've put out 1.3.1, it "stole" a version number that was
> "reserved", which can result in some confusion, e.g. when looking up
> planning information in past email.
>
> Perhaps we should call all our expected releases a.b.c, and "bonus"
> intermediary releases a.b.c.d? In the case at hand, instead of 1.3,
> 1.3.1 and 1.3.2, this would have given 1.3.0, 1.3.0.1, and 1.3.1.
I'd be fine with this; i'd also be fine with only "reserving" (targeting
for non-immediate changes) a.b, and treating any a.b.c release as an
intermediary release.
--dkg
