[darcs-users] odds/evens? (was: darcs 2.5 beta 1 release)

[Eric Kow]

On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 13:47:12 -0700, Jason Dagit wrote:
> 2.4.98.1 is also known as 2.5 (beta).  In the past I said I probably
> wouldn't mind this duplicity if we avoided using both names officially.
>  With this release it feels like we're still using both names.

Right.  We could tell ourselves to only use names like 2.4.98.1 but
I think it's improbably that this would work because

(A) the temptation to say 'Darcs 2.5 beta' informally is too
    strong (saying 2.4.98.1 sounds like you're talking about
    Darcs 2.4.x)
(B) even if we do manage to train ourselves (shock collars)
    to behave, folks who aren't steeped in Darcs development
    culture or who haven't written the docs/emails we send
    out would still be confused (for the same reason above).

Far better to avoid the confusion than to try and document it away.

Since I'm writing another mail on this anyway, I thought I'd
redo my table showing (A) what the upcoming release we're doing
now would look like and (B) using the branch names Petr taught me
for issue tracker milestones.

=============================     =======  =========
branches                          old way  odd/even
=============================     =======  =========
STABLE                            2.4      2.4
previous release

HEAD prior to cutting the         2.4      2.5
release branch

CURRENT                           2.5      2.5
the release branch

HEAD once we have cut the         2.6      2.7
release branch

---

STABLE major release              2.4.0    2.4.0
previous release

STABLE point releases             2.4.x    2.4.x

CURRENT alpha                     2.4.97   2.5.97

CURRENT beta                      2.4.98   2.5.98

CURRENT rc                        2.4.99   2.5.99

upcoming major release            2.5.0    2.6.0
==============================    =======  ========

I always manage to bungle something or another in my clumsy attempts at
making things clear, so hopefully there's nothing wrong with this table!

> Ideally, we'd use something like 2.5 release candidate 1, or 2.5rc1.
>  Hackage doesn't support it directly.

Right, so we should work with what Cabal/Hackage offer us.

>  Since we have both darcs and darcs-beta packages on Hackage, we could
>  have the darcs-beta package report its version number in terms of
>  rcN.  So it could have been uploaded as 2.5.0 and then report itself
>  as 2.5rc1.  That takes a bit of work in the release scripts, but I'm
>  starting to think that would be the ideal solution from my point of
>  view.

Now that's an interesting new angle on the problem, thanks!  We could
adapt it gently to support the alpha/beta/rc distinction (we've gone
from only using rc's to using betas and rcs, and one day there may be
alphas).

> We could avoid reusing version numbers that the darcs-beta package used or
> we could start over at 2.5.0.

Even if darcs-beta reports the version numbers different, I would still
be very nervous about reusing version numbers.  Seems like potential
room for confusion or miscommunication.  So if we were to do something
like what you propose, I'd like us to find a way for darcs-beta numbers
to be in between darcs numbers.  Just a sort of communications paranoia.

Thanks!

-- 
Eric Kow <http://www.nltg.brighton.ac.uk/home/Eric.Kow>
PGP Key ID: 08AC04F9
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.osuosl.org/pipermail/darcs-users/attachments/20100713/9b328178/attachment-0001.pgp>