On 24 Jul 2019, at 20:36, Jon Siwek wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 6:02 PM Johanna Amann <joha...@icir.org> > 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 might be slow here - but doesn’t the same problem apply to the proposed naming scheme? So - you proposed master using 3.1.0-alpha.X. I was asking why we can’t just do 3.1.0-X instead, given that in semver numbering everything still stays consistent. I agree that this will need changes to our versioning scripts :) >>> 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 ? True. I still like the sound of -dev and -rc better; and just not having a -alpha/-dev label even more - but I admit that that is a purely personal preference to some degree. Another advantage of them is that they keep the version numbers somewhat shorter :) Johanna _______________________________________________ zeek-dev mailing list zeek-dev@zeek.org http://mailman.icsi.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/zeek-dev