I know, that's what we've been doing for a long time now. But it feels kinda stupid, because with 2.8 it went like this:

2.6.0
2.7.0-svn-1
2.7.0-svn-2
2.7.0-svn-3
...
2.7.0-svn-xx
2.8.0-alpha-1

So we ended up in a situation that the 2.7.x never really existed, and we never really used those numbers for anything. It just served as a "tag" for the build number. It made more sense when the build number was the MINORREVISION.

The other problem is that for stable versions development versions are marked differently, since they are at "next version-svn-xx", where xx is the build number. E.g. after 2.8.0 stable release we have 2.8.1-svn-1, which reads as "the first svn build of 2.8.1".

However, if we keep 2.9 in the loop somewhere, the same logic does not apply, since 2.9.0-svn-1 is "the first svn build of 2.9.0, except that 2.9.0 will never exist as a release, and it's really the first svn build of 3.0.0, but we're not just calling it that, because of... some reason."

(As a note: the Linux kernel, from which this even-odd alternating was originally copied from, stopped doing it because it was too confusing to people, and they developed a better development model which didn't require it anymore.)

/Janne

On 16 Oct 2008, at 22:47, Andrew Jaquith wrote:

I had sort of thought we were doing the system where the dev- versions were odd-numbered, and the released ones were 3.0.

That would make the next branch the 2.9 version -- and when it's ready to go 3.0, we bump it up to that number.

On Oct 16, 2008, at 3:18 PM, Janne Jalkanen wrote:

There are a couple of fixes targeted for 2.8.1 now, can I commit them now,
or wait until 2.8.0 is released ?

Let's wait until 2.8.0 is released. I don't want to deal with *three* branches ;-)

What is the release number to use now, continue with the current scheme ( =>
v2.8.0-beta-22) ?

The first version in the branch will be 2.8.1-svn-1.

Trunk... I don't know. Should we just simply use 3.0.0-svn-1 and skip the confusing 2.9 numbering? After all, we never had e.g. a 2.7.1, but they were all 2.7.0-svn-xx.

/Janne

Reply via email to