[Mono-dev] Mono version numbering

[Thomas Wiest]

Ernesto wrote:
> Euan MacInnes wrote:
>   
>> I would suggest that, rather than one version, Mono should split up 
>> it's packages differently.
>>     
>
> I have to agree. If we are talking about a "on size fits all" Mono 
> distribution, no version number can be too descriptive.
>   
Exactly, so maybe we eliminate the confusion entirely and use a version
number that has nothing to do with .Net.

It seems to me that the whole problem that we are having is that we keep
trying to imply our status with our version number, and people keep
inferring wrong (as with Miguel's example of the guy asking when asp.net
2.0 would be done). Why don't we stop trying to imply our status through
our version number?

If we had a completely different numbering scheme, this wouldn't happen.
For instance, we could do something like Ubuntu where we take the
Year.Month.0 of the release. So, 1.2.6 would most likely be 7.11.0.

7.11.0 doesn't make any sense to a .Net person. Therefore they will have
to go read the release notes and other documentation to find out exactly
what is in this version. Bug fix only releases could be 7.11.1, .2, etc.

The other nice thing about this is since Miguel started working on Mono
in 2000, it would be a close approximation of how many years have been
put into the release (and how mature the project is). If the version is
going to imply anything, it should imply the maturity. :)

Even if we decided to have individual version for each component, we
should still have a version number that encompasses the whole.

Just my thoughts,
Thomas