Exactly :-) On Wednesday, August 12, 2009, Joel Webber <j...@google.com> wrote: > Makes sense to me. So the first one will be gwt-2.0.0-m0, right? > > On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 11:40 PM, Bruce Johnson <br...@google.com> wrote: > Mostly, this writeup is aimed at people who have been working on GWT's own > build-related stuff, but if anyone else has objections, now would be a good > time to raise them (though it seems unlikely anyone would). > > > In the past, we've never had a good naming scheme for distros other than the > "general availability" distro. > For milestones, we used the convention "0.0.<rev>", which probably scares people off and isn't at all self-descriptive. For RCs > and GAs, we used "<major>.<minor>.<bugfix>" (e.g. 1.5.0 was 1.5 RC1, 1.5.1 > was 1.5 RC2, and 1.5.2 was GA). This is all too ad hoc and confusing. > > > Here's the new proposal: > <major>.<minor>.<bugfix> (e.g. 2.1.0, 2.1.1, 2.1.2)=> This is an official, > supported build. Every new minor (or bigger) release would start with a > bugfix number of "0". > > > <major>.<minor>.<bugfix>-rc<n> (e.g. 2.0.0-rc1, 2.0.0-rc2)=> This is release > candidate build "n" for the specified upcoming GWT release > <major>.<minor>.<bugfix>-m<n> (e.g. 2.0.0-m1, 2.0.0-m2)=> This is milestone > build "n" for the specified upcoming GWT release > In other words, the stream of announced code drops for 2.0 will look like > this (assuming 2 milestone and 1 rc): > > > 1) gwt-2.0.0-m1.zip2) gwt-2.0.0-m2.zip3) gwt-2.0.0-rc1.zip4) gwt-2.0.0.zip > Note that we would always include the RC number, even if there's just one > (because you never know if another one is coming). > > > I'm very happy to report that there seems to be no need to change even a > single line of code, as best I can tell. (Thank you to whomever wrote the > version string parsing code to ignore non-digit prefixes and suffixes.) Thus, > by simply following this convention when we set GWT_VERSION in the continuous > build, everything should work just fine. > > > -- Bruce > P.S. No, Joel, we can't start counting at 0, even though it makes more sense > :-) I can read your mind. > > > >
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
