+1 to Bryan's comment
Bryan Stearns wrote:
-1 to this 'forward' numbering scheme: I voiced an opinion earlier
today in IRC that this numbering scheme is confusing, but Heikki said
it had already been decided.
Every project I've worked on works the old way: intermediate builds
have a number based on the previous major release, with something
incremental added to it. The only exceptions to this are
release-candidate builds (which aren't done unless they're _really_
release candidates: the only way a build gets tagged with
1.0-RC-something is if people believe it might actually be the build
that gets tagged 1.0).
It seems wrong that 0.7 is going to sort before all of the
intermediate builds that lead up to it.
(more below)
...Bryan
Heikki Toivonen wrote:
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).
I don't see how the confusing forward-numbering scheme affects this.
How does it solve this problem?
* 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.
Again, the forward-numbering idea still has us talking using major,
minor, and micro numbers. How does it solve this problem?
* 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)?
The bugzilla "build identifier" field should be used to record the
specific build where the bug was found. The version number field is
too limited to be useful, and the guided bug-entry page doesn't even
ask for it separately anyway... further, I again don't see how
numbering forward helps in this case: reporters need to record the
specific build in which they found the bug no matter what nomenclature
we use.
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.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "Dev" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "Dev" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
