Re: [Zeek-Dev] Zeek 3.0.0+ "master" versioning process change
On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 09:35 -0700, Jonathan Siwek wrote: > My main reason for preferring alpha/beta is "it's less different than > before", otherwise don't have much argument against dev/rc. Let's just do dev/rc then, seems that's what more people prefer. And then we'll go ahead with your scheme for 3.0.0, that should work well. Robin -- Robin Sommer * Corelight, Inc. * ro...@corelight.com * www.corelight.com ___ zeek-dev mailing list zeek-dev@zeek.org http://mailman.icsi.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/zeek-dev
Re: [Zeek-Dev] Zeek 3.0.0+ "master" versioning process change
I like -dev and -rc more as well. -alpha on the master branch seems weird to me. I feel like alpha implies we actually did an official branched release, and not just commits from the main line where we’re doing development. Tim > On Jul 25, 2019, at 8:12 AM, Robin Sommer wrote: > > Using "3.1.0-X" would also feel semantically a bit confusing I think > as we'd be changing the meaning of a scheme we're already using. > > I like the idea of using "dev.X" and "rcX". I was originally feeling > similar about "alpha" but the sorting is a nice property to have. > Swtiching from "beta" to "rc" would address that. > > In the end, either scheme works for me. > > Robin > > On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 20:36 -0700, Jonathan Siwek wrote: > >> On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 6:02 PM Johanna Amann wrote: >>> >>> Actually, thinking about it some more - could we just not have the >>> -alpha (or -dev) label, and go back to how it was before - with a >>> changed meaning? >>> >>> so - just 3.1.0-[commit-number] for the development builds. >> >> Our versioning script uses the last-reachable tag in "master". At the >> time we start the 3.1.0 development cycle, we don't have that 3.1.0 >> tag, and also that tag won't ever be made along the "master" branch, >> it will be made sometime later within the "release/3.1" branch. >> I generally like this - the only thing that I am not sure about is the alpha label. I get that it works great with alphabetic ordering - but for me alpha tends to signify some kind of test release. >> >> What's meant by "test release" here ? >> >> Could essentially consider any given commit in "master" to be a "test >> release" -- and if we decide to be more formal/vocal about providing >> builds of "master" (e.g. the OBS nightlies), then "alpha" may describe >> exactly what you think it signifies ? >> >> - Jon >> ___ >> zeek-dev mailing list >> zeek-dev@zeek.org >> http://mailman.icsi.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/zeek-dev > > > > > -- > Robin Sommer * Corelight, Inc. * ro...@corelight.com * www.corelight.com > ___ > zeek-dev mailing list > zeek-dev@zeek.org > http://mailman.icsi.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/zeek-dev ___ zeek-dev mailing list zeek-dev@zeek.org http://mailman.icsi.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/zeek-dev
Re: [Zeek-Dev] Zeek 3.0.0+ "master" versioning process change
Using "3.1.0-X" would also feel semantically a bit confusing I think as we'd be changing the meaning of a scheme we're already using. I like the idea of using "dev.X" and "rcX". I was originally feeling similar about "alpha" but the sorting is a nice property to have. Swtiching from "beta" to "rc" would address that. In the end, either scheme works for me. Robin On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 20:36 -0700, Jonathan Siwek wrote: > On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 6:02 PM Johanna Amann wrote: > > > > Actually, thinking about it some more - could we just not have the > > -alpha (or -dev) label, and go back to how it was before - with a > > changed meaning? > > > > so - just 3.1.0-[commit-number] for the development builds. > > Our versioning script uses the last-reachable tag in "master". At the > time we start the 3.1.0 development cycle, we don't have that 3.1.0 > tag, and also that tag won't ever be made along the "master" branch, > it will be made sometime later within the "release/3.1" branch. > > > > I generally like this - the only thing that I am not sure about is the > > > alpha label. > > > > > > I get that it works great with alphabetic ordering - but for me alpha > > > tends to signify some kind of test release. > > What's meant by "test release" here ? > > Could essentially consider any given commit in "master" to be a "test > release" -- and if we decide to be more formal/vocal about providing > builds of "master" (e.g. the OBS nightlies), then "alpha" may describe > exactly what you think it signifies ? > > - Jon > ___ > zeek-dev mailing list > zeek-dev@zeek.org > http://mailman.icsi.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/zeek-dev -- Robin Sommer * Corelight, Inc. * ro...@corelight.com * www.corelight.com ___ zeek-dev mailing list zeek-dev@zeek.org http://mailman.icsi.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/zeek-dev
