versioning & release schedule
Ethan (allanon@crystaltokyo.com)
Fri, 11 Dec 1998 13:44:44 -0800 (PST)
Okay, looks like there's some disagreement on this. Here's my take on
it.
Versioning:
Any system that gets the job done is fine by me. I want the version to
tell me what version comes before what. If we have two trees, I want
to be able to distinguish them easily. Anything else is negotiable. :)
I know there are also some concerns over user misapprehensions, like
mistaking a 1.7 tree as stable because it doesn't contain "beta". What
do you all think?
Release schedule:
For the stable tree, it seems best to keep the number of new versions to
a minimum, and make sure that the user doesn't have to do any patching.
The question is, then, what do we release, and when?
Since there shouldn't be many patches, I suggest we release a new version
whenever we have a new patch, increment the patchlevel (1.6.x, x ==
patchlevel), and make a tarball of the new version available on f.a.o, as
well as the patch. Since the tarballs take a lot of space, I also suggest
we remove intermediate versions. ie, keep 1.6.0 and the latest 1.6.x, and
remove 1.6.1, 1.6.2, ..., 1.6.(x - 1).
For the devel tree, at least until we get CVS, patches should be fine,
with a release schedule somewhat like we've been doing with the betaX's.
----
Ethan Fischer
allanon@crystaltokyo.com
http://members.xoom.com/allanon1