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
Re: [Zeek-Dev] Zeek 3.0.0+ "master" versioning process change
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
Re: [Zeek-Dev] Zeek 3.0.0+ "master" versioning process change
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. This would still work in a sem-ver style since… 3.1.0-12 < 3.1.0-beta.1 < 3.1.0 if I understand the semver standard correctly. (Numeric identifiers always have a lower precedence than non-numeric identifiers; it also works on a ascii-compare). Johanna On 24 Jul 2019, at 17:54, Johanna Amann wrote: > Hi, > > 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. Could we perhaps make it > -dev? :). If we then use -rc instead of -beta we have alphabetical > ordering again - and to me this tends to represent what we are doing > better in any case… > > Johanna > > On 24 Jul 2019, at 16:29, Jon Siwek wrote: > >> I'm suggesting a small change to our usual development and versioning >> process of the "master" branch: replace post-release versioning with >> pre-release versioning. E.g. once we enter the 3.0.0 beta period, >> "master" will start using versions like 3.1.0-alpha.X where the old >> process would have used 3.0.0-X (where X is number of commits since >> the git tag). >> >> Full description: https://github.com/zeek/zeek/issues/488 >> >> Please raise any potential issues soon if you find any. >> >> - Jon >> ___ >> 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 ___ 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
Hi, 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. Could we perhaps make it -dev? :). If we then use -rc instead of -beta we have alphabetical ordering again - and to me this tends to represent what we are doing better in any case… Johanna On 24 Jul 2019, at 16:29, Jon Siwek wrote: > I'm suggesting a small change to our usual development and versioning > process of the "master" branch: replace post-release versioning with > pre-release versioning. E.g. once we enter the 3.0.0 beta period, > "master" will start using versions like 3.1.0-alpha.X where the old > process would have used 3.0.0-X (where X is number of commits since > the git tag). > > Full description: https://github.com/zeek/zeek/issues/488 > > Please raise any potential issues soon if you find any. > > - Jon > ___ > 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
