Follow-up Comment #7, task #2171 (project savane):
> > I especially do not want 1.1+1 to look like a new release.
> > [...]
>
> Why not? Essentially, it *is* a new release -- a bugfix one, though.
Because it's not meant to be a new release. It's meant to be a repackaging of
a specific release, because there was something annoying in its previous
packaging, a tiny difference.
> It doesn't have to involve all those complex actions for a normal release,
but
> think of it: you'll need to create a new tarball, sign it, upload it, tag
the
> stuff in the CVS, and add a news item about the new version. (Add more
stuff
> I've probably forgotten.)
Creating the tarball and packages, signing it, is done in 2 commands.
make tar deb-packages
inside the savane repository
make savane-cp savane-ul
in my local dl.gna.org directory.
I never post a new item in such case, only a comment. It does not take long.
But doing so would not be enough if it was about a new release.
> > it really looks like a release. While the idea of making
> > release containing only trivial bugfixes is not a bad one, we
> > currently do not make such release.
>
> So why don't we start doing so? That would already educate our users about
the
> new version scheme.
That would be weird to change the release model just to education users about
a version scheme.
Doing bugfixes only release would first need an audience that only wants
bugfixes, not new features. But currently I think most our users have no
problem with the fact they get new features along with bugfixes.
And doing such release would indeed make more complex source code management
with branches.
> Hm, I would not replace the former release with the fixed one. Why not
leaving
> the release in the download area, also for history purposes? Otherwise,
one
> could argue that all tarballs for Savane (except the current one) should
be
> deleted, because every user should install the latest version.
We always get to the same point: 1.1+1 is not a new release, it's 1.1 minus a
dumb crap in it. And there's no "historical" interest in providing users 1.1
plus this dumb crap (things like a broken install script, an sql update file
that creates error). If one want to go archeological, he can browse the CVS,
but he version 1.1+1 is replacing is a broken 1.1 version, nothing else.
It's not a new release. That's why I want to use the +, because what I want
to do is very specific to the way I make the release of Savane currently.
> Urgs. Well, a perfect opportunity to create a Savane 1.0.9 tarball ;-)
And having people getting the broken 1.0.8 because they havent seen a new
announce? And having people getting the broken 1.0.8 because they think it's
a valid release?
That's a disservice to our users not to replace the 1.0.8 by 1.0.8+1.
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<http://gna.org/task/?func=detailitem&item_id=2171>
_______________________________________________
Message posté via/par Gna!
http://gna.org/
_______________________________________________
Savane-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/savane-dev
