On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 9:19 AM, Joachim Dreimann < [email protected]> wrote:
> 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 Even if using 0.8dev though, we should find some way to emphasize your point about "Provide rev!". Maybe just 0.8dev (provide rev!)
