Proposed new versioning system.

archuser · 2006-10-01 13:51:53

I've filed a feature request in the bug report tool but I thought I'd open it for discussion here.

I propose a new versioning system reflecting the kernel version. Like this: Arch-K2.6.18_original-install.iso; interpreted as Arch Linux, (K)ernel 2.6.18, original release. Then as updated ISOs are released they could be named thus: Arch-K2.6.18_update1-install, Arch-K2.6.18_update2-install and so on. Obviously when a new kernel is released it would be Arch-K2.6.20_original-install, etc. The final update before a new kernel version is used could be Arch-K2.6.16_final-install.

So there's no specific version of Arch except that the installer uses the latest kernel and has been updated to reflect new important changes which does not necessarily use a later kernel.

Chman · 2006-10-01 15:57:30

... or use a "date" version as gentoo

hotsauce · 2006-10-01 19:19:49

This will make arch look outdated since there is now new iso for every kernel upgrade. As has been discussed many times, version numbers on a rolling release system don't make much sense anyway. I don't see the point in tying the version numbers to a single (admittedly fundamental) part of the whole distro when there is so much else going on.

Keep it like it is and don't mix up people. Version numbers are only a "gimmick" anyway...

magnum_opus · 2006-10-01 19:47:52

i stand by my previous suggestion

magnum_opus wrote:

we should start using byzantine versioning schemes a new one for each release
7.2 beta 3 RC 1 alpha 4
build 3287 preview 3.26 test release 1
8.4.29.05.1-b6
and so on thus preventing any one from being able to tell which is the latest version but giving us all something to do in the form of seeing who can come up with the biggest string.

archuser · 2006-10-01 20:00:11

hotsauce wrote:

This will make arch look outdated since there is now new iso for every kernel upgrade. As has been discussed many times, version numbers on a rolling release system don't make much sense anyway. I don't see the point in tying the version numbers to a single (admittedly fundamental) part of the whole distro when there is so much else going on.
Keep it like it is and don't mix up people. Version numbers are only a "gimmick" anyway...

Arch 0.7.2 looks outdated compared to Slackware 10.2 and yet Slackware 10.2 uses the 2.4.31 kernel.

I just think that if the release includes the kernel version in it's title then people can see that it is a very up to date distro. Even as a rolling release distro it still doesn't upgrade the kernel that often.

It's just a suggestion and it could be improved.

Snowman · 2006-10-01 21:02:26

Version numbers doesn't mean anything. Udev is already at version 100. Is it more advanced than the kernel? Not really. At one point, Slackware skipped 3 major versions to keep up with the other major distros which I find silly: http://www.slackware.com/faq/do_faq.php?faq=general#0
On the next Arch release, instead of it being 0.8 we could release it as 125.0 for example.

As to your proposed system, it's not practical. If the installer is completely rewritten but if the kernel version hasn't changed, then it will appear as a minor version. And it's too complicated. Better keep the actual system or use the date as mentionned by Chman.

PJ · 2006-10-01 21:27:11

magnum_opus wrote:

i stand by my previous suggestion
magnum_opus wrote:
we should start using byzantine versioning schemes a new one for each release
7.2 beta 3 RC 1 alpha 4
build 3287 preview 3.26 test release 1
8.4.29.05.1-b6
and so on thus preventing any one from being able to tell which is the latest version but giving us all something to do in the form of seeing who can come up with the biggest string.

That would look cool. But I don't think it is practical.

Romashka · 2006-10-01 22:41:14

No changes in current versioning scheme are needed. I like Arch 0.7.2 versioning sheme even more than Gentoo 2006.1.

magnum_opus · 2006-10-01 22:55:53

PJ wrote:

magnum_opus wrote:
i stand by my previous suggestion
magnum_opus wrote:
we should start using byzantine versioning schemes a new one for each release
7.2 beta 3 RC 1 alpha 4
build 3287 preview 3.26 test release 1
8.4.29.05.1-b6
and so on thus preventing any one from being able to tell which is the latest version but giving us all something to do in the form of seeing who can come up with the biggest string.
That would look cool. But I don't think it is practical.

thats sort of the whole point.

ralvez · 2006-10-02 00:45:27

I think that the current versioning system works just fine and you know what they say: if it ain't broken ....

allucid · 2006-10-02 01:21:12

Let's start a 1 million and then count down. Or perhaps use binary.

KerowynM · 2006-10-05 17:25:02

Hehe I'm all for Arch v0.1000

phrakture · 2006-10-05 17:57:20

I vote we go in octal... it's just enough of a twist to make people's brains hurt, and we don't have to change anything to comply with it, except that 0.8 becomes 1.0

</sarcasm>

archuser · 2006-10-05 18:07:45

Be sarcastic all you like but my system is still better.

mucknert · 2006-10-05 18:11:34

archuser wrote:

Be sarcastic all you like but my system is still better.

Now isn't that a very biased statement? I don't think that your system is better at all. It practically adds nothing of value. Versioning-Ricer, anyone?

Besides: hexadecimal versioning is way cooler!

archuser · 2006-10-05 19:29:29

I was being sarcastic too.

shadowhand · 2006-10-06 18:21:54

I know phrak was being sarcasting, but honestly, I think that octal versioning systems are awesome. No confusion with what number in 1.2.3.4.5 means, just simply 1:1, version 1, release 1, 5:12, version 5, release 12.

*shrug* I guess everyone has their own idea of what's "best". I don't think the standard major.minor.micro system is bad either, it's just not as intuitive as octal, imvho. (Yay! I added a new letter to it!)

Cerebral · 2006-10-06 20:02:33

Er... I'm confused. Octal = base 8.
ie 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 becomes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 12.

Is "octal" a word for Ver:Rel versioning too? Neat!

aquila_deus · 2006-10-07 05:39:46

Hmmm I thought you meant to replace the old CVS....

archuser wrote:

I've filed a feature request in the bug report tool but I thought I'd open it for discussion here.
I propose a new versioning system reflecting the kernel version. Like this: Arch-K2.6.18_original-install.iso; interpreted as Arch Linux, (K)ernel 2.6.18, original release. Then as updated ISOs are released they could be named thus: Arch-K2.6.18_update1-install, Arch-K2.6.18_update2-install and so on. Obviously when a new kernel is released it would be Arch-K2.6.20_original-install, etc. The final update before a new kernel version is used could be Arch-K2.6.16_final-install.
So there's no specific version of Arch except that the installer uses the latest kernel and has been updated to reflect new important changes which does not necessarily use a later kernel.

Arch Linux

#1 2006-10-01 13:51:53

Proposed new versioning system.

#2 2006-10-01 15:57:30

Re: Proposed new versioning system.

#3 2006-10-01 19:19:49

Re: Proposed new versioning system.

#4 2006-10-01 19:47:52

Re: Proposed new versioning system.

#5 2006-10-01 20:00:11

Re: Proposed new versioning system.

#6 2006-10-01 21:02:26

Re: Proposed new versioning system.

#7 2006-10-01 21:27:11

Re: Proposed new versioning system.

#8 2006-10-01 22:41:14

Re: Proposed new versioning system.

#9 2006-10-01 22:55:53

Re: Proposed new versioning system.

#10 2006-10-02 00:45:27

Re: Proposed new versioning system.

#11 2006-10-02 01:21:12

Re: Proposed new versioning system.

#12 2006-10-05 17:25:02

Re: Proposed new versioning system.

#13 2006-10-05 17:57:20

Re: Proposed new versioning system.

#14 2006-10-05 18:07:45

Re: Proposed new versioning system.

#15 2006-10-05 18:11:34

Re: Proposed new versioning system.

#16 2006-10-05 19:29:29

Re: Proposed new versioning system.

#17 2006-10-06 18:21:54

Re: Proposed new versioning system.

#18 2006-10-06 20:02:33

Re: Proposed new versioning system.

#19 2006-10-07 05:39:46

Re: Proposed new versioning system.

Board footer