Re: Release rules Was: Re: [Monotone-devel] conflicts store vs show_conflicts

[Thomas Keller]

Am 22.11.2010 07:36, schrieb Martin Dvorak:
> Thomas Keller wrote:
>> We'll have regular minor releases just like before after 1.0 - we only
>> want to assert to support 1.0 with patch releases a little longer than
>> the usual minor releases. I remember we talked about some rules on the
>> list, but never actually jotted them down. I did that now on the RoadMap
>> page [0] - feel free to post corrections and / or updates there.
>>
>> Thomas.
>>
>> [0] http://wiki.monotone.ca/RoadMap/
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I never was fan of the x.99.x/x.9x/etc. version numbering for betas of
> new major versions. I've been thinking about stable/development version
> numbering recently (and also in the past) and I think it's better to
> call such versions as 1.1-alpha5, 1.1-beta3, 2.0-rc2. This means using
> the target major version but appending a suffix that marks it's not the
> final release.

We already append a suffix "dev" to development snapshots (i.e.
"1.0dev") which get created on build farms like openSUSE's build
service. Thomas Moschny said that this is suboptimal because of rpm's
version comparison algorithms which would consider "1.0dev" newer than
"1.0", so whatever we come up for the release numbering (which must have
widespread support for rpm, dpkg and friends), should be applied in a
similar way to this.

Personally I don't care much whether we use numbers or appended strings,
as long as the algorithms are smart enough to find "1.0-dev" (or
whatever) older than "1.0-alpha1" (or whatever).

Thomas.

-- 
GPG-Key 0x160D1092 | address@hidden | http://thomaskeller.biz
Please note that according to the EU law on data retention, information
on every electronic information exchange might be retained for a period
of six months or longer: http://www.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/?lang=en

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature