On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 14:52, Daniel Pocock <dan...@pocock.com.au> wrote: > > On 20/03/12 19:27, Bernard Li wrote: >> I don't really want to make a big deal out of this but I thought it >> was long agreed that we would tag a release (eg. 3.3.2) and that would >> potentially be our "Release Candidate". If everything is fine, we >> will just release as is otherwise we will discard 3.3.2, bump the >> version to 3.3.3 and repeat the cycle. >> >> > I remember that discussion too, and I think was pushing that same > argument - that it is easier to burn release numbers than to worry about > suffixes
I agree. So long as the numbers only increase, the minor release number is basically irrelevant. > That discussion was held in the days of SVN, when making a tag was quite > painful > > Now we have git, > - people can make local tags (almost like bookmarks?) whenever they like > - you can make two tags on a single commit, because tags are like > symlinks (e.g. 3.3.3rc1 and 3.3.3 both point to the same commit) > > This comes back to my earlier comments: the tags I have made today (e.g. > 3.3.3dp1) are not intended for packaging, it is just a helpful reminder > for me to know how I built the tarball for people to test. I think it > is a useful phase in the release process. > > Once we get to the point where people want to test proper versioned > RPMs, then we use a real tag (e.g. 3.3.3) and if the RPMs are proved to > be dodgy after that tag is made, then we burn the version number and try > 3.3.4 Now, with RPM releases, it may not be that bad. RPMs inherently support a "release" (in the RPM lingo), which is the least significant digit in the complete version number. If we have a ganglia release of "X.Y.Z", the RPM release could go through several changes with it's own release number. The first RPM-release for a new upstream is "1", and each change increments. So the first official binary release would be something like "X.Y.Z.-1", then -2, -3, etc. When Ganglia X.Y.(Z+1) is released, the RPM starts over: X.Y.(Z+1)-1 (and not, say, "X.Y.(Z+1)-4") If we do make a policy of tagging pre-releases for testing, i suggest that the tag include something obvious, such as a "pre1" sort of suffix. -- Jesse Becker ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF email is sponsosred by: Try Windows Azure free for 90 days Click Here http://p.sf.net/sfu/sfd2d-msazure _______________________________________________ Ganglia-developers mailing list Ganglia-developers@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ganglia-developers
