Daniel Fischer wrote: > Jay, > >> 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? > > No. The revision numbers aren't stable. They're calculated on the fly > whenever bzr needs to display them. They can go up, down or remain the > same on a commit. Even though the current mode of merging to the main > drizzle branch may prevent this from happening, release names based on > revision numbers would be meaningless. Or worse, because they will make > people believe the release name refers to a specific state of the branch > when it really doesn't.
This is my problem with using the revnos. > The stable revision IDs, on the other hand, are a bit too long. Oh yeah... and totally unreadable by humans. >> Is there a better way of doing it that anyone is interested in helping >> out with? > > I'd go with what Stewart wrote, major.minor.date for dev releases. Same > problem, the date doesn't actually refer to a specific state of the > branch, but less likely to confuse people. I'd be in favor of major.minor.date or even just year.month.day[.optional_revno] I'm not as worried myself about the tagging problems, since I think most of this should be released by software and not by humans. (push a button or run a script to make a new release) Monty _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
