harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Stepan Mishura" <stepan.mish...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Numbering of snapshots/release candidates/etc (was: Re: [general][M3] release candidate status)
Date Wed, 03 Oct 2007 06:32:32 GMT
On 10/2/07, Mark Hindess <mark.hindess@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> Something to think about after M3...
>
> On 2 October 2007 at 14:46, "Stepan Mishura" <stepan.mishura@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Currently, the next milestone candidate (r580985) is under testing.
>
> It might be more consistent if we named candidates/snapshots/etc using
> the canonical revision number - i.e. the last change revision number -
> rather than some arbitrary revision number after it (and before the next
> change).
>

I agree. I think this may correlate with auto selection of revision
number for the next snapshot. The idea is to create automation for
collecting/analysing integrity testing results and choosing the best
revision for some period of time (for example, 48 hours)

Thanks,
Stepan.

> For instance, I created some debian packages (from a source tar.gz)
> using r580997 because that happened to be the revision number at the
> time.  But really both r580985 and r580997 are just r579290 since they
> contain no new changes since that revision.  But at the moment, it
> might not be obvious to someone looking at these artifacts that they
> are based on the same code.
>
> Obviously there will be quite a lot of places where this would need
> to be fixed - classlib jar manifests, etc. - but I think it would be
> the right thing to do.
>
> Regards,
>  Mark.
>

Mime
View raw message