on 10/22/01 10:51 AM, "Doug Cutting" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> From: Jon Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >> >>> -version=1.2-rc1 >>> +version=1.2-dev >> >> I don't think that you should go back a version. It can >> confuse people. It should be 1.2.1-dev. > > I made this change when I realized that I could make releases by specifying > -Dversion=xxx on the command line. I wouldn't do that. The reason is that you want to be able to tag CVS with the right version of Lucene each time you make a release. > It's good to keep the version that folks > build themselves different from an official release name. Correct. In Apache land, we use -dev for that. > And the build > name should be beyond the current release. Whether 1.2-dev is earlier or > later than 1.2-rc2 isn't clear: it could be (and is in fact) development for > 1.2-final. 'rc' stands for release candidate. -dev stands for what is in CVS at the moment. 'rc' is definitely after '-dev' because you have made a release available from the site which is 'rc'. When you go to a 'rc' status that means you are heading towards release. > Making the default 1.2.1-dev would make it clearly beyond > 1.2-rc2, but it would also imply that 1.2.1 is the next release, which I > don't think is the case. Then it should be 1.2-rc3-dev because you are working on rc3 at this point. > My plan was to leave the default as 1.2-dev until > 1.2 is final, then switch the default to 1.3-dev. No official release will > ever be named '-dev' and so that suffix is not well ordered with respect to > release suffixes. Is that reasonable, or too confusing? How do other > projects do this? I think what is in CVS should be 1.2-rc3-dev and the release should be 1.2-rc3 or 1.2-final depending on whether or not you feel that rc3 has fixed all the issues in the previous releases and not added new problems. -jon
