On 2/17/07, Paul Benedict <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I understand the argument, but I am not aware of any other project at Apache that includes a build number as part of their version number. That doesn't mean you're the only one, but I think it's a minority practice. And if it is a minority practice, there must be a good reason to not do it on a general basis.
Not necessarily - a lot of people use EJB, is that a good reason for me to use it? Consensus != best practice. Honestly, I don't give a dang how others do it, or if how we do it is popular. I care that it adds value. In my opinion, adding the svn revision that was used to create the release does that.
My point is the Build number is irrelevant to the release. If you produce snapshots until an official build, then you've eliminated the need for it. I never needed it, and I think eliminating it may ease releases. What you're essentially doing is using the build number as THE revision number. However, the revision doesn't need a promotion until you're ready to vote on a release. So given three releasable versions using your Build scheme (2.4.000, 2.4.256, 2.4.667), that's nothing really more than 2.4.0, 2.4.1, and 2.4.2.
If you just use an arbitrary number, yes. 1,2,3 and 121, 256, 327 are equally useful or useless depending on your outlook. If the glass half full or half empty? :-) On the other hand, doing it with the SVN revision adds the same sort of information as the either type of numbering, but also provides the benefit of giving our users an easy way to see exactly what the changes are between snapshots or real releases. So, it sounds like other than some philosophical musings on the deterministic duality of release numbers, everyone is OK if I use SVN revision for that number. Cool, I'll try to get that working. Larry
