Re: [Monotone-devel] netsync flag day justifies bumping version number to 1.0

[Timothy Brownawell]

On Mon, 2009-08-24 at 12:06 +0200, Ludovic Brenta wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I am of the opinion that the next version of monotone should be 1.0 because of
> the netsync flag day.
> 
> This would allow us, maintainers of monotone in Debian, to provide two
> versions of monotone in parallel: monotone (the latest) and monotone0 (0.44),
> or monotone1 and monotone.  This would allow people to have both versions
> installed at the same time, without a clash.

Sounds good to me. I guess we'd also have to commit to some level of
maintenance/support for the old version.

> I think this would be desirable because Debian 5.0 "Lenny" contains version
> 0.40, runs on many servers including www.ada-france.org, and will remain in
> service for at least another two years.  Thus the transition period for the
> netsync change cannot be shorter than that.

So we'd end up having 3 versions to support. The one out there now, the
one (presumably) about to be released, and the one after we move to SSL
and make whatever other changes. Then in 2012 we get SHA-3 and would
want a major flag day with a history rebuild, but by then the version
out there currently would be gone.

All of which could be taken to mean that we should try to have the batch
of SSL and other changes ready in about 18 months. But then that seems a
bit long, if we actually maintain active development...

> In fact, I would suggest a policy whereby the major version number changes
> whenever netsync changes; if this policy had been in place since the
> beginning of monotone development the next version would be 3.0 or 4.0, I
> believe,

I like this idea. We'd also want to make sure to present it as an
integral part of the program name (although not necessarily the
executable, or do the symlink thing like gcc does), to try to minimize
confusion from people trying to use a monotone1 client to download a
project that uses a monotone2 server.