[FFmpeg-devel] update for 0.9
eclipse7 at gmx.net
Mon Dec 12 23:53:06 CET 2011
Reimar Döffinger wrote:
> On 12 Dec 2011, at 16:02, Dominique Leuenberger <dominique at leuenberger.net> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2011-12-12 at 15:22 +0100, Nicolas George wrote:
> >> Le primidi 21 frimaire, an CCXX, Michael Niedermayer a écrit :
> >>> update for 0.9
> >> Where does it go after that? 0.10? It looks like a step backward, since
> >> 0.10<0.9 mathematically. 1.0? This is a very symbolic number, for no
> >> particular reason.
> >> Maybe lose the "0.": 0.8.7 becomes 8.7, 0.9 becomes 9.0, and the next major
> >> release would be 10.0.
> >> Another possibility: 1.0 will be with the next major bump for SONAMEs, and
> >> then 1.1, 1.2, etc., until 2.0 for the major bump after that.
> > I'd just say: a version is a version is a version and does not mean
> > anything.
> > Randomly bumping SONAMEs just because the version changes is plain
> > wrong. The SONAME has a different purpose than showing version numbers.
> > 1.0 is nothing different that 0.1.0.1.4.3.5 (which, frankly, is still a
> > valid version number).
> > Just go to 0.10 after 0.9. Even rpm knows that 0.10 > 0.9 (it's only
> > math purists that can't believe this).
> Please restrict it to British/American..., the rest should not have an issue (they might have if the version was 0,10 instead).
I also would stop interpeting version numbers mathematically. I might be biased
because I use a "," normally (as ,Reimar pointed out already, many people do).
People don't have problems with linux kernel versions and they have often increased
beyond 9 in the minor positions.
BTW I also dislike the very special interpretations of versions like e.g. 1.0!
More information about the ffmpeg-devel