Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from October 2003
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 09:52:57 -0700, Stas Bekman <stas@stason.org> wrote:
>> I think "yes", in that it should be reporting itself as 5.8.1 with 1
>> registered patch (MAINT #####)
>>
>> 5.8.1-to-be reported itself as 5.8.0 with a maint patch for most of the
>> period between 5.8.0 and 5.8.1. IIRC Jarkko only advanced it to 5.8.1
>> (with a maint patch) shortly before the release candidates.
>>
>> Then again, if we are going to release 5.8.2 soon (for the hashing issues)
>> then we'll be onto release candidates in the next few days anyway. :-)
>
>Is there any significant reason for not incrementing the release number
>immediately after doing a release. This is just confusing for those who
>maintain multiple builds of perl. And then somewhere down the road you have to
>reinstall helluva lot things because suddenly the directories including 5.8.1
>should be 5.8.2. And there are lots of them. I'd rather switch to the 5.8.2
>notation right away and go with it all the way till it gets released, no
>matter when this happens. Does it make any sense?
Not to me. I consider 5.8.2 a "milestone", so only releases at or after
that milestone should be labeled 5.8.2. Everything before that is 5.8.1
with local patches. I think only RCs should have the new version number,
all dev snapshots/builds should use the previous one.
There are also some subtle implications for
use 5.8.2;
when you go through old dev snapshots to search for a breaking change.
But that is probably only a minor consideration.
If you really want to use different version numbers for interim snapshots,
then I think there should be dev and release version numbers:
5.8.2 public release
5.8.3 development
5.8.4 next public release after 5.8.2
But I find that excessive.
Cheers,
-Jan
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next