Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote (29 May 2015 15:51:09 GMT) : > 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 also be fine with only "reserving" (targeting
> for non-immediate changes) a.b, and treating any a.b.c release as an
> intermediary release.
This would remove the ability to distinguish major releases (e.g. 1.4
in our current versioning scheme) from point-releases (e.g. 1.4.1), no?
