Thinking on this a little more, for daily builds, I highly recommend NOT bumping the assembly revision number. By bumping this version on the daily build, this means that any NAntContrib tasks that reference a NAnt assembly will also have to be recompiled.
To make things worst, if any assemblies need to go into the GAC, you'll end up having each day's version installed in the GAC. My suggestion around this is hold the assembly version number (including the revision number) to be stable. Only if there is a breaking interface/functionality change should the the version number be changed. The version that should be updated daily for the daily builds should be the Win32 file version resource. This can be set using either the AssemblyFileVersionAttribute, or for more sophisticated version stamps, /win32res compiler option. I haven't tried this yet, but I think a Win32 version resource may us get around the range limits because a true string used in the StringFileInfo section. (http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/vcug98/htm l/_asug_overview.3a_.version_information_editor.asp) I don't know how this is going to work for mono, though. Any ideas ? - Ants | -----Original Message----- | From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On | Behalf Of Anthony LoveFrancisco | Sent: Friday, 11 July, 2003 00:15 | To: 'Gert Driesen'; 'John Barstow' | Cc: 'Nant-Developers (E-Mail)' | Subject: RE: [nant-dev] RE: NAnt version number | | | | > My proposal is that nightly builds should have a build | number of the | | format: | | > 0.8.3.YYMMDD | | > That way it's always clear that this is, in fact, a | | development build. | | > We should be able to add this to the daily build script to | | > auto-increment. | | > | | | | The revision number is actually a five digit number, so you | | can't use the format you've described.. that's why I | | mentioned YMMDD, and not YYMMDD | | | | If you are using the AL.EXE documentation, then, we still hit | a hard limit | of 0 through 65534 for the revision number, What happens after 2006 ? | | Can I suggest using the number of days since some reference | date ? January | 1, 2000, perhaps ? This should give us about 179 years to | come up with a new | revision numbering scheme. :-) | | We can try considering revision numbers less than 100 (or | some arbitrary | value) to be official builds, while anything else would be | daily builds. | | Also using the leading 0's for 00001, doesn't really give you | 0.8.3.00001. | | - Ants | | | | | | | ------------------------------------------------------- | This SF.Net email sponsored by: Parasoft | Error proof Web apps, automate testing & more. | Download & eval WebKing and get a free book. | www.parasoft.com/bulletproofapps1 | _______________________________________________ | nant-developers mailing list | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nant-developers | ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email sponsored by: Parasoft Error proof Web apps, automate testing & more. Download & eval WebKing and get a free book. www.parasoft.com/bulletproofapps1 _______________________________________________ nant-developers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nant-developers
