httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
Subject Re: release method for 2.0
Date Thu, 25 Jan 2001 16:59:24 GMT
From: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@ebuilt.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 7:38 AM


> I want to change the way we are numbering and producing releases.
> We got onto a wrong track after the 0.8 releases and have been
> constipated ever since.  I want to go back to producing a version
> every week or two (when the tree is not in mid-change) and decide
> after the fact what quality to assign it:
> 
>    snap  --  just a CVS snapshot, may not compile
>    alpha --  packaged release that is believed to compile
>              but hasn't been tested under production conditions
>    beta  --  packaged release that is known to compile on at
>              least three platforms and believed to be ready
>              for production use
> 
>    current:  public release of latest code
>    stable:   public release of best code
> 
> What it requires is a change to the way we mark the version in the
> source (something I was going to do anyway), a scripted release
> process, and my time to do the RM stuff until we get it back to
> a consisent process.
> 
> Are there any objections to me doing the above?

No, by all means :-)  I wouldn't change for the 1.3.17 stable tree,
but this would be a great benefit for the 2.0 cycle.  I'd like to
see the exact schema before you commit it to the tree.

Two big irks (for me) about what happens today...

1.3.17-dev sorts after 1.3.17, where the actual sequence of events
it comes before.  When I see a suffix, I presume it's an after-effect.
Since 1.3.17-dev isn't 1.3.17, but 1.3.16-patched, it's confusing.

We also have no real schema to release a beta mid-cycle (that I've
ever uncovered.)  That is, we should progress from 1.3.16-stable 
to 1.3.16-patched to 1.3.beta-17 to 1.3.17.  This flow midstream
doesn't make much sense in our naming convention.

If your suggestion addresses these issues, you have a convert :-)



Mime
View raw message