Using "3.1.0-X" would also feel semantically a bit confusing I think as we'd be changing the meaning of a scheme we're already using.
I like the idea of using "dev.X" and "rcX". I was originally feeling similar about "alpha" but the sorting is a nice property to have. Swtiching from "beta" to "rc" would address that. In the end, either scheme works for me. Robin On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 20:36 -0700, Jonathan Siwek wrote: > On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 6:02 PM Johanna Amann <joha...@icir.org> wrote: > > > > Actually, thinking about it some more - could we just not have the > > -alpha (or -dev) label, and go back to how it was before - with a > > changed meaning? > > > > so - just 3.1.0-[commit-number] for the development builds. > > Our versioning script uses the last-reachable tag in "master". At the > time we start the 3.1.0 development cycle, we don't have that 3.1.0 > tag, and also that tag won't ever be made along the "master" branch, > it will be made sometime later within the "release/3.1" branch. > > > > I generally like this - the only thing that I am not sure about is the > > > alpha label. > > > > > > I get that it works great with alphabetic ordering - but for me alpha > > > tends to signify some kind of test release. > > What's meant by "test release" here ? > > Could essentially consider any given commit in "master" to be a "test > release" -- and if we decide to be more formal/vocal about providing > builds of "master" (e.g. the OBS nightlies), then "alpha" may describe > exactly what you think it signifies ? > > - Jon > _______________________________________________ > zeek-dev mailing list > zeek-dev@zeek.org > http://mailman.icsi.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/zeek-dev -- Robin Sommer * Corelight, Inc. * ro...@corelight.com * www.corelight.com _______________________________________________ zeek-dev mailing list zeek-dev@zeek.org http://mailman.icsi.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/zeek-dev