Mostly, this writeup is aimed at people who have been working on GWT's own build-related stuff, but if anyone else has objections, now would be a good time to raise them (though it seems unlikely anyone would).
In the past, we've never had a good naming scheme for distros other than the "general availability" distro. For milestones, we used the convention "0.0.<rev>", which probably scares people off and isn't at all self-descriptive. For RCs and GAs, we used "<major>.<minor>.<bugfix>" (e.g. 1.5.0 was 1.5 RC1, 1.5.1 was 1.5 RC2, and 1.5.2 was GA). This is all too ad hoc and confusing. Here's the new proposal: <major>.<minor>.<bugfix> (e.g. 2.1.0, 2.1.1, 2.1.2) => This is an official, supported build. Every new minor (or bigger) release would start with a bugfix number of "0". <major>.<minor>.<bugfix>-rc<n> (e.g. 2.0.0-rc1, 2.0.0-rc2) => This is release candidate build "n" for the specified upcoming GWT release <major>.<minor>.<bugfix>-m<n> (e.g. 2.0.0-m1, 2.0.0-m2) => This is milestone build "n" for the specified upcoming GWT release In other words, the stream of announced code drops for 2.0 will look like this (assuming 2 milestone and 1 rc): 1) gwt-2.0.0-m1.zip 2) gwt-2.0.0-m2.zip 3) gwt-2.0.0-rc1.zip 4) gwt-2.0.0.zip Note that we would always include the RC number, even if there's just one (because you never know if another one is coming). I'm very happy to report that there seems to be no need to change even a single line of code, as best I can tell. (Thank you to whomever wrote the version string parsing code to ignore non-digit prefixes and suffixes.) Thus, by simply following this convention when we set GWT_VERSION in the continuous build, everything should work just fine. -- Bruce P.S. No, Joel, we can't start counting at 0, even though it makes more sense :-) I can read your mind. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
