So, IIUC, Ryan should have used 5.91.0.1
as the version number on the release branch? Robby On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 2:38 PM, Eli Barzilay <e...@barzilay.org> wrote: > Yesterday, Matthew Flatt wrote: > > At Mon, 25 Nov 2013 09:56:45 -0500, Ryan Culpepper wrote: > > > On 11/25/2013 09:44 AM, Matthew Flatt wrote: > > > > Here's the full comment: > > > > > > > > The version string has one of the forms: > > > > X.Y > > > > X.Y.Z Z != 0 > > > > X.Y.Z.W W != 0 > > > > where each X, Y, Z, W is a non-negative exact integer, Y must not > > > > exceed 99, and Z or W must not exceed 999. Y>=90 means that > this is > > > > working towards {X+1}.0, and X.Y (Z=0, W=0) is an alpha version > for > > > > {X+1}.0; Z>=900 means working towards X.{Y+1}, and X.Y.Z as an > > > > alpha release. > > > > > > > > Then intent is that when Z and W are 0, the string form of the > version > > > > number is just X.Y, not X.Y.Z.W. > > > > > > > > How about this clarification? > > > > > > > > ... and X.Y (i.e., Z=0 and W=0, so Z and W are > > > > omitted from the string form) ... > > > > > > That's not the part that needs clarifying. I think that fact that the > > > string form drops final zeros is clear from lines 2-4. > > > > > > The part that needs clarifying is how to choose the version number for > > > the alpha releases leading up to version {X+1}.0. (Really, how to > choose > > > alpha version numbers in general, since I've had similar problems in > the > > > past.) From this statement, "X.Y (Z=0, W=0) is an alpha version for > > > {X+1}.0" (Y>=90 already stated), I would expect that 5.91 would be a > > > fine alpha version number for 6.0. Is it? If not, what should the alpha > > > version number be? > > > > I agree that "5.91" is the right alpha-version string, assuming that > > it's intended as an "alpha" in the sense of our release rules (as > > opposed to a "release candidate", which has a non-zero W). > > These two things were originally independent: the ability to specify > alpha-ness (the second .91) and release-ness (W=0), and that was used > by the old build script to make some decisions for what the installers > do. Assuming that this still matters, there is a problem with using > "5.91" for the release process -- and instead it should be "5.91.0.1" > to make it treated as a nightly build. For example, on Windows the > installer for a "5.91.0.1" wouldn't grab the suffix registration, but > "5.91" would which makes it bad as something that you ask people to > try. > > BTW, this is not the same meaning of "alpha" that is used in the > release checklist -- that one has the meaning of a "release > candidate". > > -- > ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay: > http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life! > _________________________ > Racket Developers list: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev >
_________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev