On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 10:57 AM, Matthias Kilian <[email protected]>wrote:
> Hi, > > On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 09:53:35AM +0100, Eric Kow wrote: > > ============================= ======= ======== ================= > > task current odd/even comments > > ============================= ======= ======== ================= > [...] > > Name ongoing work in HEAD 2.7 2.9 > > after release branch has been > > cut > > Are you really about to have two actively maintained branches (even > aka stable vs. odd aka development)? > > I'm not sure wether this would be a good idea (unless the odd > branches are a very short-living species); active developers would > have more work, people would probably do less testing. > > And with long-living odd branches there's the danger of people > becoming sloppy and introducing bugs/breaking things more often > because it's `the unstable branch'. Of course, this depends on the > people involved, so it won't be happen to darcs ;-) > Well, we currently do this with short lived branches. There is the active development branch (HEAD) and then close to release there is a special branch for feature freeze/testing/stabilization. We don't have the stable/unstable split anymore as long lived branches. And IMO, that's working nicely. The confusion for me is that we have is duplicated version names for a single version of darcs. 2.4.98.1 is also known as 2.5 (beta). In the past I said I probably wouldn't mind this duplicity if we avoided using both names officially. With this release it feels like we're still using both names. Ideally, we'd use something like 2.5 release candidate 1, or 2.5rc1. Hackage doesn't support it directly. Since we have both darcs and darcs-beta packages on Hackage, we could have the darcs-beta package report its version number in terms of rcN. So it could have been uploaded as 2.5.0 and then report itself as 2.5rc1. That takes a bit of work in the release scripts, but I'm starting to think that would be the ideal solution from my point of view. If a release candidate survived to become the release, we would upload it as the darcs package. There are two options at this point. We could avoid reusing version numbers that the darcs-beta package used or we could start over at 2.5.0. Either way, the compiled binary would report a different version number because one would have "rcN" at the end and the other would not. I think the package names makes the distinction clear. Jason
_______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
