stdcxx-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: x.y.z numbering and releases
Date Thu, 19 Jan 2006 05:59:07 GMT
Martin Sebor wrote:
> Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> 
>> --On January 18, 2006 5:30:04 PM -0700 Martin Sebor 
>> <sebor@roguewave.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I don't think of the name of a file mentioned in emails as a release,
>>> least of all when it refers to a transient file in someone's home
>>> directory. Similarly, I don't consider an SVN branch to be an actual
>>> release, even if its contents were identical to it. With this mindset
>>> I can only see one potential effect of skipping versions on users --
>>> that of confusion.
>>
>> One of the problems in working in open-source projects is that 
>> everyone can see the release immediately.  Therefore, we don't have 
>> the ability to 'take' a release back - once you tag it or announce it 
>> in any public forum, it's gone.  By enforcing a 'cheap' version number 
>> policy, we remove any confusion: were they using the '1.2.3' release 
>> from Jan 10 or was that the '1.2.3' release from Jan 15?  Instead, we 
>> make it crystal clear what the release was by only allowing that 
>> version to be used once.  -- justin
> 
> I understand the motivation behind the policy and fully support
> the goal of preventing the problem it is designed to address.
> 
> However, I believe that the issue can be just as effectively
> dealt with by implementing the -rcN (or similar) suffix policy
> that Bill mentioned in his first post, with the additional
> (and IMO essential) advantage of preserving the well-established
> meaning of the version number grounded in precisely defined
> technical criteria.

I agree with Martin -if- the SVN tag is also designated tags/1.2.3-rcN
until it's voted in, and then copied or renamed to tags/1.2.3 upon release.

Mime
View raw message