Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from October 2003
Re: 5.8.2 is built as 5.8.1
From: Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes
October 16, 2003 11:00
Re: 5.8.2 is built as 5.8.1
Message ID: 20031016175906.GA2540@efn.org
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 <firstname.lastname@example.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.