+1 to Bryan's objection. 1.0.m1 is far from 1.0, calling it 1.0 is false
advertising.
Andi..
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005, 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
