> - do we really want to keep the 0.0.0 special version? (would it > really hurt if master currently said 2.5.1-250-g4a00f1e?)
FWIW I like 0.0.0 because it strongly differentiates hand-made/master releases vs. official/release branch releases. And it always sorts before release versions, which feels safer to me. Also FWIW, I am not a fan of master's "git describe" looking like "2.5.1-250-...". That seems misleading, because if we put the 2.5.1-rc0 tag directly on master's commit B: A - B [2.5.1-rc0] - C - D (master) And the 2.5.1 branch continues off B: A - B [2.5.1-rc0] - E - F [2.5.1] Then describe will name commit C as "2.5.1-rc1-1-C", when really in my mind "2.5.1-rc1 + 1 commit" is commit E. On the 2.5.1 branch. There would basically be two "2.5.1-rc1 + 1 commit" commits, which, yes, there is still the sha, but that seems confusing IMO. > If we do want these, then it should be as easy as hard-coding the > version in a file somewhere I see what you're saying, although from a workflow perspective that would mean branching is "branch, edit version file, commit" which is pretty close to "branch, make a dummy commit, tag as 2.5.0-rc1". - Stephen -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "GWT Contributors" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
