Hello,
so far, when a new major release a new branch was created with the first version in that branch:
rel_1_0_0 - was for 1.0.x rel_1_1_0 - was for 1.1.x
Some complained that it is not suggestive when minor release in the branch was done, like 1.0.1 or 1.1.1. So, let's try to find a way more convenient. So we will have release a.b.c, where c can be incremented several time, being like a patch update release for a.b.0.
Proposed options: 1) a_b_0 - stick to current module 2) a_b_x - use x to signal that it is a changing number for same major release 3) a_b - ignore patch release number
Other suggestions are welcome. Please feedback as soon as possible. The branch will be created in few hours.
Cheers, Daniel
Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
Hello,
so far, when a new major release a new branch was created with the first version in that branch:
rel_1_0_0 - was for 1.0.x rel_1_1_0 - was for 1.1.x
Some complained that it is not suggestive when minor release in the branch was done, like 1.0.1 or 1.1.1. So, let's try to find a way more convenient. So we will have release a.b.c, where c can be incremented several time, being like a patch update release for a.b.0.
Proposed options: 3) a_b - ignore patch release number
This is also how asterisk does it and I'm fine with it. IMO it makes sense to not have a "patch version number" in the branch name.
btw: why not using "." instead of "_", e.g.
Nevertheless we should also have tags for each release.
Eg. this is asterisk's naming schema:
http://svn.digium.com/view/asterisk/branches/1.2/ http://svn.digium.com/view/asterisk/tags/1.2.10/
regards klaus
Am Montag, 12. März 2007 11:01 schrieb Klaus Darilion:
This is also how asterisk does it and I'm fine with it. IMO it makes sense to not have a "patch version number" in the branch name.
btw: why not using "." instead of "_", e.g.
Nevertheless we should also have tags for each release.
As tags and branches are simply cheap copies in subversion, i second this option.
1.2 for the branch, 1.2.0 - 1.2.N for the release tags.
Best regards,
Henning
another question :-) ,
so shall we rename the old branches and tags to reflect the new naming schema?
Cheers, Daniel
On 03/12/07 12:06, Henning Westerholt wrote:
Am Montag, 12. März 2007 11:01 schrieb Klaus Darilion:
This is also how asterisk does it and I'm fine with it. IMO it makes sense to not have a "patch version number" in the branch name.
btw: why not using "." instead of "_", e.g.
Nevertheless we should also have tags for each release.
As tags and branches are simply cheap copies in subversion, i second this option.
1.2 for the branch, 1.2.0 - 1.2.N for the release tags.
Best regards,
Henning
Users mailing list Users@openser.org http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
another question :-) ,
so shall we rename the old branches and tags to reflect the new naming schema?
I'd recommend to do so in order to avoid confusion. The handy thing about having an a.b branch is that one can checkout a branch and each update will get all bug fixes for this branch.
Christian
Cheers, Daniel
On 03/12/07 12:06, Henning Westerholt wrote:
Am Montag, 12. Mdrz 2007 11:01 schrieb Klaus Darilion:
This is also how asterisk does it and I'm fine with it. IMO it makes sense to not have a "patch version number" in the branch name.
btw: why not using "." instead of "_", e.g.
Nevertheless we should also have tags for each release.
As tags and branches are simply cheap copies in subversion, i second this option. 1.2 for the branch, 1.2.0 - 1.2.N for the release tags.
Best regards,
Henning
Users mailing list Users@openser.org http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
Users mailing list Users@openser.org http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
On 03/12/07 15:30, Christian Schlatter wrote:
Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
another question :-) ,
so shall we rename the old branches and tags to reflect the new naming schema?
I'd recommend to do so in order to avoid confusion. The handy thing about having an a.b branch is that one can checkout a branch and each update will get all bug fixes for this branch.
Same opinion here, so we renamed branches to a.b and tags to a.b.c.
Cheers, Daniel
Christian
Cheers, Daniel
On 03/12/07 12:06, Henning Westerholt wrote:
Am Montag, 12. Mdrz 2007 11:01 schrieb Klaus Darilion:
This is also how asterisk does it and I'm fine with it. IMO it makes sense to not have a "patch version number" in the branch name.
btw: why not using "." instead of "_", e.g.
Nevertheless we should also have tags for each release.
As tags and branches are simply cheap copies in subversion, i second this option. 1.2 for the branch, 1.2.0 - 1.2.N for the release tags.
Best regards,
Henning
Users mailing list Users@openser.org http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
Users mailing list Users@openser.org http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
Users mailing list Users@openser.org http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
-
Christian Schlatter -
Daniel-Constantin Mierla -
Henning Westerholt -
Klaus Darilion