versioning rant (was: svn commit: rev 1336 - trunk/subversion/include)

On Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 12:59:33PM -0600, cmpilato@tigris.org wrote:
> Author: cmpilato
> Date: 2002-02-20 18:59 GMT
> New Revision: 1336
>
> Modified:
> trunk/subversion/include/svn_version.h
> Log:
> Lose the (rc2) from the version information.

Grrr....

This means that our 0.9 release actually says "rc2" in it, doesn't it?

Yup. Just verified.

<rant-mode>

Damn it. I complained about putting this alpha, beta, blah blah blah in
there before. And this is one of the reasons. Those labels (alpha, beta,
etc) are quality markers that are external descriptions of the state of the
tarball. Encoding them into the tarball is (obviously) prone to error, and
it means that we need to change the tarball whenever we want to (re)describe
its state.

As a great example of how I believe it should be done, consider the latest
httpd release. The tarballs went up labeled as 'alpha'. After a bunch of
people tested it, and enough +1 votes were given, it was renamed to
httpd-2.0.32-beta. No changing of the tarball. No changes in source control.
Just rename the tarball, and change some text on the web pages.

Note that we were already working kind of along this pattern, but just not
doing it very effectively. Karl put up a tarball and called it rc1. Play
play play. Make some changes, call it rc2. Play play play. Wow, that one
works great, let's call it the 0.9 release.

[ but wait! the code in the tarball still says rc2, and the source control
  revision it is built from *also* says that; sorry, screwed. guess it will
  always be 'rc2' now... ]

</rant-mode>

Can we just get rid of that darned suffix?

Cheers,
-g

-- 
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org