[bind10-dev] naming and versioning

[Stephen Morris]

On 25/09/12 18:16, Jeremy C. Reed wrote:
> We had discussed a few times about the naming, filenames, and
> versioning of BIND 10. But I don't think we ever had a decision.
> 
> The BIND9 way is: name-9.A.B where A is the major feature release
> and B is the minor update release. The alphas are always numbered
> so starts with name-9.A.Ba1. The betas are also numbered so like
> name-9.A.Bb1. And the release candidates are numbered like:
> name-9.A.Brc1. : I propose for the version number we start at 1.0,
> so the very first alpha would be: bind10-1.0a1. And the next
> release phase would be bind10-1.0b1 (assuming only one alpha, it
> would be the first beta).
> 
> I am also okay with 0.0 (bind10-0.0a1) or 10.0.0 (bind10-10.0.0a1)
> but that does seem somewhat redundant).
> 
> Any comments on this?

I would go for bind10-1.0a1

However...

What we haven't given any thought to is the link between BIND 10 DNS
and BIND 10 DHCP.  At the moment, they are all in one package.

If we use the bind10-A.B numbering scheme, we are faced with the
problem that the a major update to the DNS component (change the "A"
number) may not correspond to a major update of the DHCP component
(and vice-versa).

There was a thread in the bind10-dev list that started back in
February discussing the splitting of BIND10 into different packages:

https://lists.isc.org/pipermail/bind10-dev/2012-February/003064.html

I think we need to revisit this, and possibly associate different
version numbers with different components, e.g.

bind10-2.1 requires bind10-core-2.0 or later
bind10-dhcp-1.2 requires bind10-core-2.1 or later
etc.

Until BIND 10 DHCP gets to the point of its first alpha release, there
is no real urgency.  But when it does, we really need to have sorted
this issue.

Stephen