On 10/2/07, Mark Hindess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Something to think about after M3... > > On 2 October 2007 at 14:46, "Stepan Mishura" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > Currently, the next milestone candidate (r580985) is under testing. > > It might be more consistent if we named candidates/snapshots/etc using > the canonical revision number - i.e. the last change revision number - > rather than some arbitrary revision number after it (and before the next > change). >
I agree. I think this may correlate with auto selection of revision number for the next snapshot. The idea is to create automation for collecting/analysing integrity testing results and choosing the best revision for some period of time (for example, 48 hours) Thanks, Stepan. > For instance, I created some debian packages (from a source tar.gz) > using r580997 because that happened to be the revision number at the > time. But really both r580985 and r580997 are just r579290 since they > contain no new changes since that revision. But at the moment, it > might not be obvious to someone looking at these artifacts that they > are based on the same code. > > Obviously there will be quite a lot of places where this would need > to be fixed - classlib jar manifests, etc. - but I think it would be > the right thing to do. > > Regards, > Mark. >
