Duh, Kelly. Everybody knows that you always start counting at 1 when there's a number immediately following a space or a non-digit and you start counting at 0 when there's a number that immediately follows a period. It's such a logical and obvious system that I thought the rules would be self-evident. On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 9:24 AM, Kelly Norton <knor...@google.com> wrote:
> No, no, Joel, we will start counting at 1 not 0. The first release will be > gwt-2.1.1-m1. > I think the naming scheme is good (even if sometimes starts with 0, other > times with 1). > > /kel > > On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 9:12 AM, 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.zip >>> 2) gwt-2.0.0-m2.zip >>> 3) gwt-2.0.0-rc1.zip >>> 4) 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. >>> >>> >> >> >> >> > > > -- > If you received this communication by mistake, you are entitled to one free > ice cream cone on me. Simply print out this email including all relevant > SMTP headers and present them at my desk to claim your creamy treat. We'll > have a laugh at my emailing incompetence, and play a game of ping pong. > (offer may not be valid in all States). > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
