Message: previous - next
Month: February 2014

Re: [trinity-devel] Alternative release version numbering scheme proposal

From: "David C. Rankin" <drankinatty@...>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 13:30:37 -0600
On 02/12/2014 12:01 PM, Calvin Morrison wrote:
> I think like everything, moderation is good. There's always the tug
> and pull or wanting to get users fixes, but not wanting to screw
> anything up
> Sorry for my long winded speech

No need, it is a good discussion. I did not say not to do bug fixes or
improvements, what I said was make minor version/release bumps "mean something".
What I said was:

...there is nothing wrong with maintenance releases of the form


So long as there are no build differences to the packagers required within
maintenance release. For example, upon R14.0.0-1 release the build requirements
for each of the packages are frozen. Through the next 50 (or whatever number)
maintenance releases (R14.0.0-1 -> R14.0.0-50) all packages will continue to
build in the same manner as they built with R14.0.0-1.

What I also said was tying a release to time is meaningless. Again, version
number changes major/minor mean something. Significant changes, deprecation in
API fuctions, or breaks in backwards compatibility, if not, just implement the
change as a R14.0.0-Num change.

The same applies to the packaging/naming standards. If we are going to release
as R14, then it is R14.0.0-X until there are major changes or deprecations and
then it becomes R14.0.1-X. When there are breaks with compatibility we have
R14.1.0-X. And when we want to make it no longer look/feel, behave or perform
like traditional KDE3, then we have

(something else).0.0-1

Lastly before we schedule R14.0.1-X for release, we need to know what major
changes are going into R14.0.1, otherwise, it is a release just for the sake of
release. That is what is to be avoided.

I have never been a fan of R14 for a name because I saw no continuity or
relationship between 3.5.13 and R14. I saw far more logic in 3.5.14 (but that
does not follow standards since there are breaks in compatibility) so 3.6.0 made
more since to me. And... knowing there was never a KDE 3.6 it did more than
enough to signify a break/change with KDE while continuing the traditional look
an feel. But, being a team player, I'll go with R14.0.0 even though package
managers never like package versions that start with a 'letter'.....

trinity-R14.0.0-1.i686.tar.xz, though

tde-R14.0.0-1.i686.tar.xz speaks volumes more about what the desktop is and
where it came from.

tde-3.6.0-1.i686.tar.xz says it all...

Like I said, for discussion purposes, this is what logic says to me. That
doesn't mean something else is more/less wrong.

David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E.