Why not year.month.release-number? 2009.03.914
Jay Pipes wrote:
Brian Moon wrote:
On 2/24/09 8:08 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:
All,
We're planning on releasing the first tarballs of Drizzle in less
than a
week. We'd like to get input on whether our ideas on release number are
hair-brained or not...
Our plan is to release tarballs and releases that are simply named for
the Bazaar revision, whatever the rev is when we tag up the release.
So,
for instance, the release might be just called "r914"...
Would this work? Is there a better way of doing it that anyone is
interested in helping out with?
As a geek, I kind of like it. But, I fear that those that have not
worked on a source code repository and worked with revisions might be
confused.
Agreed, but these tarball releases are more for geeks anyway, right? ;)
How about YEAR.revision? So, 2009.914. That gives context to age
and at the same time can point to a place in the source history. If
I see someone has 2009.234 installed and it's 2012, I know they are
running an old ass version. But, with just the revision, there could
be 100 or 1000 numbers between releases. You can't easily tell age
from that. You could go full Ymd, 20090224.914, but I think that is
overkill.
I could definitely go for that... 2009.914 is cool with me...
-j
_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss
Post to : [email protected]
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss
Post to : [email protected]
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
