On 15 January 2014 17:07, Ryan Ollos <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 7:07 AM, Olemis Lang <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 4:52 AM, Joachim Dreimann < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I lean towards calling it "trunk", because that should be recognisable > > for > > > those raising issues. 0.8dev almost suggests it is a release > (candidate). > > > > > > afaict , the issue with trunk is that it's a "movable" state of the code > > base . Report some issue for trunk=0.8 , release 0.8 , and later > trunk=0.9 > > ; then reporting against trunk means something else . Therefore by using > > trunk we should have a mechanism (or documented release step) to batch > > modify tickets (i.e. trunk => version x.y.z) . > > > > > > > I > > > think we should also encourage users to provide the revision they were > > at, > > > for example by calling the version: > > > > > > "trunk (provide rev!)" > > > > > > > > I do agree , this could be a custom field combined with a ticket > > manipulator enforcing to set that field for version=trunk > > > > [...] > > > I have concerns about using "trunk", which are well-described by Olemis' > comments. > > The reason I suggested "0.8dev" is because that is the version that will be > seen throughout Bloodhound (e.g. in the footer, on the //About// page). If > we have concerns about this nomenclature, the "dev" string could be changed > in `setup.cfg`. There was a discussion about this in Trac, but I'm unable > to locate it. > No need, you're both right. It slipped my mind that we already display 0.8dev in the UI. - Joe -- Joachim Dreimann | *User Experience Manager* WANdisco // *Non-Stop Data* e. [email protected] twitter @jdreimann <https://twitter.com/jdreimann>
