An impassioned plea on version numbers
shade at redhat.com
Wed Oct 11 17:48:19 UTC 2017
On 09/22/2017 08:04 PM, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> I propose that versions should simply increase incrementally.
> March 2018 - v10
> September 2018 - v11
> March 2019 - v12
> September 2019 - v13
Yes, that makes more sense than year.month. Maybe x.y.z semver-like scheme is better, and 9.0
already fits there. I have been living with the proposed scheme in my mind, on the off-chance the
novelty of it displeases me, but no, it does not bode well. Quick! What is the version of the next
LTS release? And the one after that? Can you do it without a chart?
Actually, I can't even do that for Ubuntu. I have to remember that Ubuntu 16.04 is LTS, not the
16.10. But I did downloaded and installed some Ubuntu images only much later realizing they were not
LTS, because those minor numbers are different. Remembering that only e.g. Java 8.*, and Java 10.*,
and Java 12.* are LTSes would be much, much easier.
Another perspective: current proposal answers "when the JDK was released", which is not the same as
"what the JDK is". It might appear easier for JDK developers who have JDK roadmaps firmly committed
in their heads, but not for ordinary folks.
Mark promised a more substantial reply after JavaOne. No pressure ;)
More information about the discuss