Re: Version numbering for release DECISION!

["Devon H. O'Dell " <dodell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 08:10:47AM -0500, Walter wrote:
> Matthew Dillon wrote:
> >    I've decided on a version numbering scheme.  Sorry, dates are out.
> >    As much as dates are interesting, they create problems when dealing 
> >    with multiple branches.  More importantly, they do not impart the
> >    same sense of progress that real version numbers impart and, even
> >    more importantly, all kernels are moving targets and tagged with
> >    their build dates anyway so having a release date AND a build date 
> >    is simply too confusing.
> >
> >    EVEN numbers denote releases.  e.g. 1.0, 1.2, 1.4, 1.6
> >    ODD numbers denote work-in-progress.  e.g. 1.1, 1.3, 1.5, 1.7
> >
> >    -CURRENT	Will indicate a build based on the head of the CVS tree.
> >
> >    -WORKING	Will indicate a build baesd on our current stable tag
> >
> >		I am going to rename the tag from DragonFly_Stable to
> >		DragonFly_Working to avoid confusion, but not today.  This
> >		tag has turned out to be quite important because it allows
> >		developers to stay reasonably up to date but take less
> >		risk then the people running CURRENT.
> >
> >    -RELEASE	Will indicate a build based on a release branch.
> >
> >    -STABLE	Will indicate a build based on a post-release branch.
> 
> Drive-by, mainly ignorant, lurker question / suggestion here:
> 
> Instead of calling the current stable development tag WORKING
> and the lastest patched release version STABLE, why not leave
> STABLE for the former, and use something like UPDATED for the
> latter?
> 
> (Ducking out now.)
> 
> Walter

If anything, it should be the other way around. I do know from
helping others with FreeBSD that there's a huge misconception
about what the -STABLE tag really means. Lots of people run
-STABLE in FreeBSD because they think that it's a `more stable'
version. If any of these people come over to DragonFly, they
will still also need to be re-trained.

Reserving a tag called -STABLE for code that should run and be
secure is good.

I'm not sure that WORKING is the best name either, but I don't
really care to argue about semantics. DEVELOPER or something
could also be a possibility.

--Devon

Attachment: pgp00021.pgp
Description: PGP signature