On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 1:04 AM, Daniel Fischer <[email protected]> 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. > > The stable revision IDs, on the other hand, are a bit too long. > > 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. > > This seems like the best idea to me. Mostly I'm just glad nobody's trying to write some arbitrary GUID/UUID function for release versions (RUID?). -- - Sheeri K. Cabral http://tinyurl.com/mysqlbook will take you to the Amazon.com page for my upcoming book, "MySQL Administrator's Bible".
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
