On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 7:07 AM, Olemis Lang <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 4:52 AM, Joachim Dreimann < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > I lean towards calling it "trunk", because that should be recognisable > for > > those raising issues. 0.8dev almost suggests it is a release (candidate). > > > afaict , the issue with trunk is that it's a "movable" state of the code > base . Report some issue for trunk=0.8 , release 0.8 , and later trunk=0.9 > ; then reporting against trunk means something else . Therefore by using > trunk we should have a mechanism (or documented release step) to batch > modify tickets (i.e. trunk => version x.y.z) . > > > > I > > think we should also encourage users to provide the revision they were > at, > > for example by calling the version: > > > > "trunk (provide rev!)" > > > > > I do agree , this could be a custom field combined with a ticket > manipulator enforcing to set that field for version=trunk > > [...] I have concerns about using "trunk", which are well-described by Olemis' comments. The reason I suggested "0.8dev" is because that is the version that will be seen throughout Bloodhound (e.g. in the footer, on the //About// page). If we have concerns about this nomenclature, the "dev" string could be changed in `setup.cfg`. There was a discussion about this in Trac, but I'm unable to locate it.
