Subject: Re: [kernel.org users] [RFD] On deprecating "git-foo" for builtins

From: Andreas Ericsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2008 10:13:46 +0200

Felipe Contreras wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 7:24 PM, Aidan Van Dyk <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> * Felipe Contreras <[email-masked]> [080829 12:11]:
>>> On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 6:24 PM, Aidan Van Dyk <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>>> * Perry Wagle <[email-masked]> [080801 00:00]:
>>>>> Jeff King has convinced me that it's perfectly legitimate to introduce
>>>>> non-upward compatibilities in minor version releases of "young"
>>>>> software.
>>>> This is the gist of the problem.  You keep hammering about a
>>>> "non-upwards compatibilities in minor version releases", yet you have
>>>> *not* pointed out one such in-compatibility in a minor version release..
>>>>
>>>> Remember, in git, 1.6 is a "major version" release, with release notes, etc.
>>>> 1.5.X is a "minor version" release.
>>>> 1.5.X.Y is a "patch" release.
>>> What is X (2.0)?
>> X would be a digit, like 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, or 9, as in the git
>> 1.5 releases:
>>        1.5.0
>>        1.5.1
>>        1.5.2
>>        1.5.3
>>        1.5.4
>>        1.5.4
>>        1.5.6
>>
>> And now also:
>>        1.6.0, being the first of the 1.6 releases...
> 
> I meant 'X.0.0', if 1.X is major, what is X.0? Huge?
> 

X.0 is "technically backwards incompatible".

If, for example, SHA1 turns out to be horribly broken, git might have
to be updated to use something else instead. Such a switch would
require a version bump from 1.x to 2.x.

That might come some day anyway, assuming we decide to make a flag-day
and just remove older-version compatibility code from git or some
such.

-- 
Andreas Ericsson                   [email-masked]
OP5 AB                             www.op5.se
Tel: +46 8-230225                  Fax: +46 8-230231