buildr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matthieu Riou <matthieu.r...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: No beta or RC?
Date Fri, 20 Feb 2009 05:33:55 GMT
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 9:24 PM, Alexis Midon <alexismidon@gmail.com> wrote:

> Let's base the discussion on a real use case, so we can be specific:
> I'm currently developing a new feature for ODE. This development is done in
> a separate branch named FOO based on version 1.3.0-SNAPSHOT. When I'll
> think
> my development is good enough for testing, I'd like to release and share
> this version of my branch.
> But if we look at the buildfiles, both branches, 1.X and FOO, are about to
> release with the same version: 1.3.0. This is really confusing and does not
> denote the code differences
>
> so how should we handle this case?
>

Different branches, different base names. One is ODE, the other is ODE-FOO.
Keeps life simple :)


>
> A few of points:
> Personnally I think the SNAPSHOT suffix is completely useless. To me, a
> snapshot is not different from a release and is just additional complexity.
> A 3-digit version is enough.
>

I'm fine with snapshot as long as it stays on your machine. Make it just an
optional marker to know it's a local build. You should be free to not use it
though.


>
> Qualifiers should be supported obviously. But they do not solve our case:
> parallel developments. the conventiont is that 1.3.0 is newer than
> 1.3.0-FOO. And this describes a sequence anyway.
>
> Assaf has suggested that the package name should discriminate parallel
> developments. The branch FOO should release artifacts named like
> ode-compiler-FOO-1.3.0, while 1.x (the main branch) releases
> ode-compiler-1.3.0. The difference is clearly stated and do not interfer
> with version comparaison.
>

I'd agree although I would do ode-FOO-compiler-1.3.0. First because FOO
qualifies the whole stuff, not just a module and second because it's easier
to change: the root definition doesn't have any directory associated with
it.

Matthieu


>
>
> On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 4:53 PM, Alex Boisvert <boisvert@intalio.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Oh, right, you mean the "qualifier".
> >
> > Here's what Better Builds with
> > Maven<http://repo.exist.com/dist/maestro/1.7.0/BetterBuildsWithMaven.pdf
> > >says,
> >
> > With regard to ordering, the elements are considered in sequence to
> > determine which is newer - first by major version, second - if the major
> > versions were equal - by minor version, third by bug fix version, fourth
> by
> > qualifier (using string comparison), and finally, by build number. A
> > version
> > that contains a qualifier is older than a version without a qualifier;
> for
> > example, 1.2-beta is older than version 1.2. A version that also contains
> a
> > build number is considered newer than a version without a build number;
> > for example, 1.2-beta-1 is newer than 1.2-beta.
> >
> > But my point still stands, Buildr should drop the SNAPSHOT qualifier (and
> > only SNAPSHOT) during a release.
> >
> > alex
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 4:36 PM, Assaf Arkin <arkin@intalio.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Feb 9, 2009, at 4:16 PM, Alex Boisvert <boisvert@intalio.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >  Ugh?   If beta is not a release but a pre-release, how do you
> > pre-release
> > >> a
> > >> beta?
> > >>
> > >
> > > Then maybe it's called something else, either way the fourth part is
> > > constrained.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 10:43 PM, Assaf Arkin <arkin@intalio.com>
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>  On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 2:51 PM, Alex Boisvert <boisvert@intalio.com>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>  The Maven conventions don't restrict the version to only numbers,
so
> > >>>>
> > >>> yeah,
> > >>>
> > >>>> buildr should only strip a "-SNAPSHOT" suffix.
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Actually it does: releases must end with numbers, pre-releases (rc,
> > beta,
> > >>> etc) with alphanumerics, and therefore 0 by virtue of being a release
> > is
> > >>> higher than beta2.  OSGi uses alphanumerics on the fourth part, other
> > >>> package managers have their own conventions.  Buildr doesn't follow
> > >>> anything
> > >>> more complicated than numerical.
> > >>>
> > >>> Assaf
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> alex
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 2:35 PM, Matthieu Riou <
> matthieu@offthelip.org
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>  Hi guys,
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> The logic in release strips out any letter that comes after
the
> last
> > >>>>>
> > >>>> ('.'
> > >>>
> > >>>> +
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> digit) in a project release number. So something like 1.2-beta
will
> > >>>>> actually
> > >>>>> be released as 1.2. Sounds to me like a bug but I just wanted
to
> > check
> > >>>>> before that it wasn't by design, an adoption of the 'no letter
in
> > >>>>>
> > >>>> releases'
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> RubyGem doctrine.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Given that the actual goal is only to strip an ending "-SNAPSHOT",
> > the
> > >>>>>
> > >>>> fix
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> is pretty straightforward.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Cheers,
> > >>>>> Matthieu
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message