Thanks for pointing us to that Cameron. Cheers, Andrew On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 3:31 AM, Cameron Braid <came...@braid.com.au> wrote:
> JBoss use a naming scheme that sorts alphabetically, maybe it is worth > considering > > http://www.jboss.org/jbossas/downloads/ > > Applied to the names in the original email > > 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 > > They could be : > > 1) gwt-2.0.0-Beta1.zip (or could just use B1) > 2) gwt-2.0.0-Beta2.zip > 3) gwt-2.0.0-CR1.zip (candidate for release) > 4) gwt-2.0.0-GA.zip > > Cam > > > > > 2009/8/28 Andrew Bowers <abow...@google.com> > > The current problem we are trying to solve is that it is hard to know which >> build is a major release for those who aren't intimate. >> For 1.6, the golden release was 1.6.4, which is thoroughly confusing to a >> general user who doesn't follow the development cycle. If you only care >> about the final release, you expect that you would migrate to 1.6.0 as the >> final release and 1.6.1 would be an update to that. >> >> If someone is commenting >> on a bug in a pre-release build, something labeled 1.6.0-RC1, then they will >> know what build they are using. If they don't, then they probably shouldn't >> be using it. >> >> I strongly believe this use case trumps the other issues. >> >> On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 12:01 PM, Scott Blum <sco...@google.com> wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 2:41 PM, Kelly Norton <knor...@google.com>wrote: >>> >>>> fwiw, I've never found myself sorting GWT distros but I do find myself >>>> wanting to uniquely identify them all the time. Why do you think people >>>> will >>>> be so eager to ignore part of the label? I would actually be surprised if >>>> any form of naming fixes the few incidences of the conversation you >>>> mention. >>>> I tend to think those are because people really do think they are using the >>>> release ... only to realize later they never updated their project. >>>> >>> >>> Heh, sorry, that was probably not the best way of making this point: I >>> think more obvious is usually better, because you don't have to think about >>> it. This means less wasted time, and less chance of confusion. >>> >>> Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the current system is perfect or that >>> we shouldn't change it. I'm sure there are better things than we're doing >>> right now, which might help with the problem of identifying a release vs. a >>> milestone or rc. But I do think a system where the numeric portion of the >>> version is non-unique invites confusion. >>> >>> What if we were more consistent with the parentheticals, like in the GWT >>> release >>> notes<http://google-web-toolkit.googlecode.com/svn/releases/1.7/distro-source/core/src/release_notes.html> >>> ? >>> >> >> >> >> > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
