[X2Go-User] Changing the X2Go Client for Windows version numbering

[Michael DePaulo]

Hi James,

Thanks for your feedback.

1st, I should have discussed this earlier. If there was more
discussion time, I might have gone with version numbering like
4.0.3.0.0, 4.0.3.0.1 and 4.0.3.0.2 for all Windows hotfixes/builds for
4.0.3.0.

I've only ever released 1 "hotfix". It was released because there was
1 single commit from the next version that needed to be included, and
it was Windows specific. IIRC, it would have been too much work to
release a new version for all platforms. Usually a new version, even
if it is a 4th digit update, has dozens of commits.

I will proceed with using the date for 4.0.3.0. I will release
4.0.3.0-20141021. As you point out, consistency is important.

-Mike#2

On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 8:27 AM, James M. Pulver <jmp242 at cornell.edu> wrote:
> Personally, I don't love either build numbering method. That said, I find the date suffix much harder to parse personally, it's too many numbers munged together and I just end up ignoring it.
>
> What do you all mean by the numbering anyway - i.e. why would
> 4.0.3.0+hotfix1
> Not be 4.0.3.1?
>
> Personally, from a Windows admin / user perspective, I don't care what the build process is in terms of a binary I download. I care if something changed.
>
> So if 4.0.3.0+build1 changed the version of gcc but didn't change the output, I doubt anyone would care - maybe somewhere would be a build # for deep debugging, but it wouldn't be in any download name someone would use.
>
> If 4.0.3.0+build2 packaged a new library that fixed a bug, I'd expect to see
> 4.0.3.1 again as it fixed something "in the product" from my perspective.
>
> I'm a fan of MajorChange.MinorFeatureChange.Bugfix.someotherchange sort of software numbering.
>
> That all said - I would like to see the numbering be consistent across platforms in terms of code that is shared, and the method also be consistent.
> --
> James Pulver
> CLASSE Computer Group
> Cornell University
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: x2go-user-bounces at lists.x2go.org [mailto:x2go-user-bounces at lists.x2go.org] On Behalf Of Michael DePaulo
> Sent: Monday, October 20, 2014 8:16 AM
> To: x2go-user at lists.x2go.org
> Subject: [X2Go-User] Changing the X2Go Client for Windows version numbering
>
> X2Go Users,
>
> I'd like feedback on this topic.
>
> I am thinking of switching the X2Go Client for Windows version numbering over to the version numbering that X2Go Client for Mac OS X uses such as:
> If X2Go Client for Windows 4.0.3.0 were released today:
> 4.0.3.0-20141020
> If I had to make any sort of change, either in the build process or in the source code, on 2014-11-21:
> 4.0.3.0-20141121
>
> The reason for this change is that I believe these version numbers will be simpler and less confusing. This would be especially true for Windows users who are not used to the version numbering used by Linux distros.
>
> Under the current version numbering , if I were to build X2Go Client for Windows 4.0.3.0 when it is released the version number would simply be:
> 4.0.3.0
> Then say I had to make 2 changes to the build process, such as calling different commands during the build process or bundling different 3rd party binaries/libraries (e.g., VcXsrv, OpenSSL). The 2 new version numbers would be:
> 4.0.3.0+build1
> 4.0.3.0+build2
> If I had to then make a change to the source code, it would be:
> 4.0.3.0+hotfix1
> And if I had to make 2 more changes to the build process, the 2 new version numbers would be:
> 4.0.3.0+hotfix1+build1
> 4.0.3.0+hotfix1+build2
>
> -Mike#2
> _______________________________________________
> x2go-user mailing list
> x2go-user at lists.x2go.org
> http://lists.x2go.org/listinfo/x2go-user
> _______________________________________________
> x2go-user mailing list
> x2go-user at lists.x2go.org
> http://lists.x2go.org/listinfo/x2go-user