<div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 2:58 PM, Norbert Zawodsky <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:norbert@zawodsky.at">norbert@zawodsky.at</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
Maybe just a typo ? Misplaced dots between all those 1's and 0's ...<br>
Maybe we should call it version "12" instead of 1100 ;-)<br>
<br>
Am 22.07.2011 21:50, schrieb Danny Nicholas:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="im">
<br>
I thought it was going to be 1.10.0<br>
<br clear="all"></div></blockquote></blockquote></div><br>No, they're referring to the new asterisk numbering system announced yesterday on the asterisk-announce mailing list[1]. Basically, the consensus was (amongst Digium employees I assume, since I didn't see any discussion on the topic on this list or the -dev list (although I admit I don't follow the -dev list as closely)) that there is basically never going to be a change so drastic to the asterisk core that it would warrant calling it Asterisk 2.0. Because of this, the whole concept of having 1.x releases becomes redundant, since it leads one to believe that eventually there will be a 2.0, so they're dropping the "1." part of the version numbers, and starting with what would have been version 1.10, they'll just start calling it version 10.0. The next version would be Asterisk 11.0, and then Asterisk 12.0, etc.<br>
<br>Personally, I think this is a horrible idea. I thought Digium would have better sense than this, especially after the failed experiment with the 1.6.x numbering change that they reverted on within 18 months. The confusion caused by the several different version numbers is significant, and unnecessary. Also, the fact that there have been three separate numbering schemes in the last 3 years give me the impression of instability and insecurity in the maintainers of the project, because if something as simple as incrementing a version number can't be figured out, how reliable is the asterisk project itself? Big version number changes should indicate big changes to the core of the system, not just a change in the philosophy on how you want to number and market your project.<br>
<br>I guess what I'm getting at is this - if you're convinced that there's enough change to the core to warrant a version number change away from 1.x, then just make it 2.0, not 10.0. Jumping from 1.8 to 10.0 is just confusing. <br>
<br><br><br>[1] - <a href="http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-announce/2011-July/000331.html">http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-announce/2011-July/000331.html</a><br><br>-- <br>Thanks,<br>--Warren Selby, dCAP<br>
<a href="http://www.selbytech.com" target="_blank">http://www.SelbyTech.com</a><br><br>