On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 9:30 AM, Ojan Vafai <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 9:24 AM, Darin Fisher <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 9:12 AM, Ojan Vafai <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Right. Having a shared version number across WebKit builds will never >>> catch every case (e.g. patches pulled into branches, disabled features, >>> etc.), but it is better in general than developers using the individual >>> products' version numbers. >>> >> >> Totally agree. We probably just need some kind of dotted notation to >> handle branches. The WebKit trunk should just increment N in "N.0", and >> then branches can increment the minor number. >> > > The branches are not cross-port though, right? We already have individual > product numbers in the UA string that meet this need (e.g. the Chrome or > Safari version number). > > Ojan > That's fair. I think this is a complicated issue due to the likelihood of features being disabled on a branch. So, any "version number" corresponding to the branch point alone may not be sufficient to describe the instance of WebKit. Yeah, the individual product numbers may just have to be the solution there :-/ -Darin
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
