From autoconf  Wed Dec 30 22:47:56 2020
From: "David A. Wheeler" <dwheeler () dwheeler ! com>
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2020 22:47:56 +0000
To: autoconf
Subject: Re: Autoconf version number after 2.70
Message-Id: <223141AE-1117-451B-8595-0ED3E26B1B78 () dwheeler ! com>
X-MARC-Message: https://marc.info/?l=autoconf&m=160936849807733



> On Dec 30, 2020, at 2:23 PM, Zack Weinberg <zackw@panix.com> wrote:
>=20
> On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 7:59 PM Paul Eggert <eggert@cs.ucla.edu> =
wrote:
>>=20
>> Given the changes being discussed (which seem good ones), I suggest
>> calling the next Autoconf release 2.71 not 2.70.1, as the latter
>> would use a new-to-Autoconf numbering convention that might be more
>> trouble than it's worth.
>>=20
>> There was little difference (and only a month) between Autoconf 2.66
>> and 2.67, so there's precedent for putting only a few changes into
>> Autoconf 2.71 and publishing it relatively quickly.
>=20
> I=E2=80=99ve thought about this suggestion for several days now.
>=20
> Are you saying that a version number like =E2=80=9C2.70.1=E2=80=9D, =
with three
> components, might be =E2=80=9Cmore trouble than it=E2=80=99s worth=E2=80=
=9D for *technical*
> reasons, such as programs that assume Autoconf=E2=80=99s version =
numbers
> always have only two components?  If so, can you articulate how much
> of a risk you think we=E2=80=99d be taking by using a three-component =
version
> number, and why?

I recommend switching *to* at least 3-number version numbering, as =
originally proposed.

It=E2=80=99s often unclear if =E2=80=9C2.70=E2=80=9D is before =
=E2=80=9C2.8=E2=80=9D. When there are 3 numbers, the version number
Is unambiguously *not* a real number & the confusion mostly disappears.=20=


Also, most programs of autoconf=E2=80=99s size have switched to semantic =
versioning (SemVer),
where 3 numbers are required. Trying to retain the old version numbering =
convention
Is a hindrance, not a help.

--- David A. Wheeler