On 25.08.2010 20:57, Christopher Schultz wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Chuck,
On 8/25/2010 11:15 AM, Caldarale, Charles R wrote:
From: Christopher Schultz [mailto:ch...@christopherschultz.net]
Subject: Re: Tomcat Version Numbers
why not have a tag progression that looks like this:
6.0.0-alpha
6.0.0-beta1
6.0.0-beta2
Because there are no changes to an x.y.z level, regardless of how its marking
progresses. _Any_ changes require a new dot number. The 6.0.0-alpha and 6.0.0
are identical; only the labeling changed to indicate that the particular level
had progressed through more testing. Your suggestion causes no end of
confusion, since there will be flavors of 6.0.0 running around with different
content.
Okay. Does that mean that:
[DIR] v6.0.2-alpha/ 2006-11-16 00:02 -
[DIR] v6.0.2-beta/ 2006-11-16 00:02 -
[DIR] v6.0.2/ 2006-11-16 00:02 -
...means that 6.0.2, 6.0.2-alpha, and 6.0.2-beta are all the exact same
sets of files, just with different tag names?
On the file system, the directories named *alpha and *beta are symlinks
to the one without suffix.
Looking at the list archives I would say the RM found it easiest to
always produce the directory without suffix and then add symlinks
according to the release status.
From this digging into history I would say:
6.0.0: alpha
6.0.1: alpha
6.0.2: beta
6.0.4: alpha
6.0.6: alpha
6.0.7: beta
6.0.8: alpha
6.0.9: beta
Starting with 6.0.10: stable
And yes it is possible, that a release after a beta release is again
alpha, or a release after stable is again beta incase there is a major
regression. So the use of the terminology is slightly non-standard.
Regards,
Rainer
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org
