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
