[Dev] Milestone/alpha/version numbering

[Aparna Kadakia]

On Feb 22, 2006, at 2:02 PM, Heikki Toivonen wrote:

> Finally the suggestion for new milestone (or maybe we should now say
> alpha) numbering, and also the numbering of development versions in
> between...
>
> Alpha releases, in order of preference:
>
> 1) 0.7alpha1
> 2) 0.7.alpha1
> 3) 0.7a1
> 4) 0.7.a1

+1  on 0.7alpha1 (a1 would be shorter but not easily decipherable  
that it's alpha1).

>
> Naturally alpha1 is followed by alpha2 and so on, until we finally
> release 0.7. So 0.7alpha1 < 0.7alpha2 < 0.7. < 0.7.1 < 0.8.
>
> The reason I have the preference for 0.7alpha1 is that it very clearly
> differentiates from 0.7.1, which would be a bug fix release after 0.7.
> The two things that make it very clearly different is the full string
> alpha1 and also the fact that there is no dot.
>
>
> Now, we also wanted to have fully descriptive version numbers between
> alphas. For that we agreed we'd want the subversion revision number
> included (the alphas and releases are clear even without the revision
> number).
>
> My suggestion (well, credit for this goes really to pje) is that we
> append ".dev-rXXXX" (without the quotes, replace XXXX with Subversion
> rev number) to the alpha release number we are currently working
> towards. So 0.7alpha1.dev-r1111 < 0.7alpha1.dev-r2222 < 0.7alpha1 <
> 0.7alpha2.dev-r3333 < 0.7 < 0.8alpha1-r4444 < ...
>
+1 on .7alpha1.dev-rxxxx

Heikki,
Do we need to adopt anything special for the checkpoint builds?  
Currently we use the date and the rev number for e,g  
Chandler_osx_Checkpoint_20060221_r9578.app

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.osafoundation.org/pipermail/chandler-dev/attachments/20060222/24221b1b/attachment.html