Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from October 2003
On Thu, Oct 16, 2003 at 10:20:48AM -0700, Jan Dubois <jand@ActiveState.com> wrote: > 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. The key word there is "releases". Snapshots aren't releases. As far as I can tell, having the release number in a snapshot be the forthcoming release rather than the previous release has only pros and no cons. Pros I can think of offhand are: no dll confusion with previous release (this is particually bad with os2), being able to install both the previous release and a snapshot, situations where tests need to be skipped before a certain release. Oh, and being able to catch the 10 million places where the release number has to change *before* going to an RC. > 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. I can't picture the situation you are talking about. > 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. Yes, that would work but would be excessive. IMO, the DEVEL/MAINT tag is enough to differentiate pre-release and released perls.Thread Previous