On Sunday 16 August 2009 02:02:28 Masayuki Hatta wrote: > Hi, > > >>>>> In <200908142025.27149.toad at amphibian.dyndns.org> > >>>>> Matthew Toseland <toad at amphibian.dyndns.org> wrote: > > > > official: http://people.debian.org/~mhatta/debian/freenet > > > staging: http://people.debian.org/~mhatta/debian/freenet-staging > > > What's the difference? The official one should be from the > > build01228 tag, the staging one can be auto-built if you think that > > is wise (you might want to sandbox it a bit). > > Well, your comment is a little bit confusing for me. > > The difference is, obviously, the "official" one is built from the > freenet-official git repo and the "staging" one is from the > freenet-staging git repo. But this is not what you'd ask, isn't this? > > Here's my (random) understanding: > > freenet-official: the official release, the code is reviewed, > recommended for general use. > > freenet-staging: the development-in-progress release, the code is not > reviewed, might be unstable or buggy, not recommended for general use. > > The reason I package both is, as you guessed, I want to test > (sandbox?) the bleeding edge -- generally speaking, it's common that a > bug in the released version is already fixed in the bleeding edge(I > know the release cycle of the official freent is quite frequent, > though). > > The version number (set as buildNumber in > src/freenet/node/Version.java) should be equal to the git revision > (such as build01230). I think the current "official" version is > 1230/build01230. You don't want me to stick with build01228, don't > you? Also, somehow buildNumber is set as 1229 in the current > freent-official.
Doh. Sorry, there have been times when I have failed to push to stable when releasing a build. Generally any tagged buildXXXX should be safe. > > Now both of packages are semi-"auto-built" -- I cooked up a little > script and the build process is mosly automated.. The version number > is pulled from the git tag. Okay, but we are quite liberal with giving out commit rights, so it is possible you could run un-reviewed changes to build scripts, unit tests etc and end up with a compromised box. :) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 835 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20090826/bef70303/attachment.pgp>
