Many people have complained that the current milestone numbering scheme
is confusing and unworkable. The current system is simply ascending
numbers with major, minor and micro revisions, where the micro revision
is padded with a leading zero if it is less than 10 (to help sorting).
So for example, these milestones would happen in this order: 0.5,
0.5.01, 0.5.02, 0.6.

Some problems that have been mentioned with this system (I may be
forgetting some):

* Doing a bug fix release of a milestone/release would need to add
fourth group of numbers, which seems excessive. For example, if we'd
need a bug fix of 0.6 release, it would have to be 0.6.0.1 to
distinguish from 0.6.01 milestone on the trunk (and even then there
might be confusion because of the leading zero).

* It's hard to talk about a milestone with these major, minor and micro
numbers. The informal way to talk about the milestones has been to say
m<some number>, which means the the <some number> micro revision in the
current  release cycle. So currently m8 would mean 0.5.08. But this is
informal, and changes meaning once we switch focus to the next release.

* Some people would like to use the Bugzilla version field to mark the
version of Chandler in which the bug was found. This is clear enough
with a release, but unclear with the current numbering when working
towards a release. Should the version currently be 0.5 (the previous
release) or 0.6 (the release we are working towards)?

I think Aparna, Philippe, Sheila, Ted, Katie and me then sat down to
create another numbering scheme that would fix those shortcomings. It
was decided we'd go with the following:

The major and minor versions are to be the release we are working
*towards*, and the micro version would be of the form m<ascending
(milestone) number (in current release)>. So, currently we are working
on 0.7.m1 on the trunk. After that will be 0.7.m2 and so forth, until we
finally hit the 0.7 release. Then we'll start work on 0.8.m1 etc.

-- 
  Heikki Toivonen

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Open Source Applications Foundation "Dev" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/dev

Reply via email to