On 28 March 2012 20:55, Mike Giacomelli <giac2...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> On 3/28/2012 9:16 AM, Torne Wuff wrote: >> > On 28 March 2012 12:21, Jonathan Gordon<jdgo...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Sounds good to me. Not sure if I like "stable release" though, what >> >> are other projects using? perhaps "official release"? >> > official release makes it sound like the other builds are not >> > official, which is the wrong distinction i'm trying to avoid. My >> > experience reading the forums/irc/lists is that nontechnical people do >> > not make the connection between "release" and "thing we specifically >> > released as a specific thing, as opposed to an autobuild", and thus a >> > term that relies on "release" meaning something to people is not >> > ideal. Any build we offer for download looks like a release to them :) >> > >> I thought of "polished release", but that sounds a bit silly. :) What >> about something like "LTS (long-term-service) build"? >> > > > Perhaps appending the current builds with the "pre_release_number" > would make that more clear? > > For example: > > Rockbox-3.11 (3.11 release) > Rockbox-pre_3.12-6e6f0c6-120322 (current build on the branch that will > eventually become 3.12) > > Seems to me that linking the current builds to their eventual branch > makes it much more clear how they chronologically fit together.
I am intending to develop a script that will produce a "sensible" revision number (i.e. incorporating a sequentially incrementing integer) from the git history which will also include teh release branch it will eventually be. I've just not finished it yet, I haven't poked at it for a while. You are right that it will help, but I think it's a separate issue to the labelling of the categories of build (which show up on places like the website sidebar, where specific versions are not mentioned anyway). > Mike -- Torne Wuff to...@wolfpuppy.org.uk
