Re: Release rules Was: Re: [Monotone-devel] conflicts store vs show_conflicts

[Richard Levitte]

In message <address@hidden> on Tue, 23 Nov 2010 20:20:51 -0600, Timothy 
Brownawell <address@hidden> said:

tbrownaw> left over wins", so (blank) will sort first. So it would be in order
tbrownaw>    0.99
tbrownaw>    0.99dev and 0.99~dev (these are indistinguishable)
tbrownaw>    0.99.1

Oh, so you're interpreting 0.99dev as "0.99 plus development", while I
interpret it as "development of 0.99" (OpenSSL uses the latter
interpretation for that kind of notation).  As a matter of fact, I
believe that's what we've done in monotone as well, consider the main
branch currently has the version "1.0dev" ;-)

That kind of confusion alone tells me we should probably avoid having
that kind of notation...

tbrownaw> So what's left is either even/odd to indicate release/dev,
tbrownaw> or .90/.99 to indicate dev.

I agree.

tbrownaw> Option 1
tbrownaw>    1.0 or 1.0.0, 1.0.1, 1.0.2 <- release
tbrownaw>    1.1                        <- dev
tbrownaw>    ???                        <- RC
tbrownaw>    1.2, 1.2.1, ...            <- release
tbrownaw> 
tbrownaw> Option 2
tbrownaw>    1.0, 1.0.1, 1.0.2, ...     <- release
tbrownaw>    1.0.90                     <- dev
tbrownaw>    1.0.91, 1.0.92             <- RC
tbrownaw>    1.1, 1.1.1, 1.1.2, ...     <- release

Shall we vote?  In that case, I vote for option 2.

Cheers,
Richard

-- 
Richard Levitte                         address@hidden
                                        http://richard.levitte.org/

"Life is a tremendous celebration - and I'm invited!"
-- from a friend's blog, translated from Swedish