diff options
Diffstat (limited to '.be/bea86499-824e-4e77-b085-2d581fa9ccab/bugs/529c290e-b1cf-4800-be7e-68f1ecb9565c/comments/c35835c0-8f9f-4090-ba92-1f616867e486/body')
| -rw-r--r-- | .be/bea86499-824e-4e77-b085-2d581fa9ccab/bugs/529c290e-b1cf-4800-be7e-68f1ecb9565c/comments/c35835c0-8f9f-4090-ba92-1f616867e486/body | 102 |
1 files changed, 102 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/.be/bea86499-824e-4e77-b085-2d581fa9ccab/bugs/529c290e-b1cf-4800-be7e-68f1ecb9565c/comments/c35835c0-8f9f-4090-ba92-1f616867e486/body b/.be/bea86499-824e-4e77-b085-2d581fa9ccab/bugs/529c290e-b1cf-4800-be7e-68f1ecb9565c/comments/c35835c0-8f9f-4090-ba92-1f616867e486/body new file mode 100644 index 0000000..d8014d2 --- /dev/null +++ b/.be/bea86499-824e-4e77-b085-2d581fa9ccab/bugs/529c290e-b1cf-4800-be7e-68f1ecb9565c/comments/c35835c0-8f9f-4090-ba92-1f616867e486/body @@ -0,0 +1,102 @@ +On Thursday 16 July 2009 12:38:55 W. Trevor King wrote: +> On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 07:32:31PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote: +> > "W. Trevor King" <wking@drexel.edu> writes: +> > > On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 12:54:05AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote: +> > > > "W. Trevor King" <wking@drexel.edu> writes: +> > > > > On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 10:36:26PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote: +> > > > > > Please, no. Timestamps aren't version strings, that's conflating +> > > > > > two pieces of information with very different meanings. +> > > > > > Correlating the two is the job of a [NEWS file]. +> > > > +> > > > If you want a monotonically-increasing indicator of which revision +> > > > we're up to, that's immediately available with the revision number +> > > > from VCS on the main branch. That also has the advantage of +> > > > producing consecutive numbers for each revision, by definition. +> > > +> > > But not during branch-switches, while my method skips large regions, +> > > but probably increases during any reasonable branch-switch. +> > +> > I've read this several times now, and I don't see what it's saying. +> > +> > The assumption I'm making is that there is a single canonical “main +> > branch”, from which releases will be made. +> +> I don't think you need to assume this. See my "virtual branch" +> argument below. + +But if we have a canonical "main branch" that we release, and the packager +get, we can refer to it as the stable branch, that it is not a bad idea. + + + +> > The version number set in that branch is the one which determines +> > the version of Bugs Everywhere as a whole. +> +> If you are suggesting that the dev branches adjust their release +> number _by_hand_ to match the current trunk release number, that +> allows switching, but sounds like a lot of work and isn't correct +> anyway, since they are not in the same state as the trunk. + +The version number of trunk _is_ should be the official version number of the +Bugs Everywhere releases. +The version number in branch does not means nothing outside the branch. +At least we can have a mechanism to build a version number scheme that is +consistent for us to be able to merge branch easily. + +> > The revision number is only useful in the context of the branch, so it +> > only matters when comparing versions within a branch. When you switch +> > between branches, if you're interested in the revision number you'll +> > still need to know which branch you're talking about. +> +> I think this is our main disagreement. I see all the branches as part +> of the same codebase, with monotonically increasing timestamp patch +> numbers. If you were to collapse all the commit snapshots down into a +> single chronological "virtual branch", it would still make sense, it +> would just be a bit unorganized. We do all try to move in the same +> general direction ;). + +I don't think that, outside the developers, a version number like + +cjb@laptop.org-20090713154540-ve4pmydqzb1ghgvc + +is a good choice, not for the user of BE, not for the packager of BE + + +> > This, then, is an argument for not having the revision number in the +> > version string at all. The version then becomes a more traditional +> > “major.minor.patch” tuple, and is only ever updated when some release +> > manager of the canonical branch decides it's correct to do so. +> +> It is an argument for not using the revision number. You can avoid +> revision numbers by using hand-coded patch numbers, or by using +> timestamps, which is what we're trying to decide on :p. + +We can use both. +During the development we can use version number like + +x.y.z.timestamp + +As we decide to release a stable version, the release manager set the version +number to a more traditional x.y.z format, and create a branch (stable branch) + +This way we have these advantages: + +1) an user have a simple version number to use for bug report/feature +request/help request + +2) a packager have an easy life to choose to package a stable or a trunk +version, knowing what are they doing + +bonus) we can maintain a stable and a developmente source tree/branch, where +in the development tree we can make also backward incompatible modification to +the source without making any damage to the users/packagers, while in the +stable branch we can make only bugfix/security fix or port from the devel branch +some interesting features as long as they don't break compatibility. + +bye +Gianluca + +_______________________________________________ +Be-devel mailing list +Be-devel@bugseverywhere.org +http://void.printf.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/be-devel |