Hi, On 1/17/07, Roy T. Fielding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Er, then the packages should be named 1.2.1. The problem with doing all of our laundry in public is that the public often download our unreleased packages even when we tell them not to. For that reason, most Apache projects increment the patch-level number each time a new package is produced (releases do not need to be sequential).
I agree that it's troublesome to have produced two sets of packages both versioned as "1.2". My approach so far has been to use the -rcN version suffix for candidate packages used for testing an upcoming release, and I think that approach has worked quite well. However, in order to have the official release vote happen on the actual physical packages that get released, I've had to drop the -rcN suffix from the last release candidate. So far it's worked fine, but now we had a last minute blocker issue that caused the need to repackage the release. Packaging the fixed release as 1.2.1 is a valid solution, and I'll make it happen if that's the consensus. I personally find the unsequential version numbering practice somewhat confusing and adopting it would also require some changes also to our Jira usage. It's however nothing we couldn't handle, so I have no strong objections. That way the last part of the release number would be more like a build sequence number than a planned version number. BR, Jukka Zitting
