Mailing List Archive

RE: Version of Lucene (was: Re: cvs commit: jakarta-lucene/src/te st/org/apache/lucene HighFreqTerms.java)
> From: Jon Stevens [mailto:jon@latchkey.com]
>
> > -version=1.2-rc1
> > +version=1.2-dev
>
> I don't think that you should go back a version. It can
> confuse people. It should be 1.2.1-dev.

I made this change when I realized that I could make releases by specifying
-Dversion=xxx on the command line. It's good to keep the version that folks
build themselves different from an official release name. And the build
name should be beyond the current release. Whether 1.2-dev is earlier or
later than 1.2-rc2 isn't clear: it could be (and is in fact) development for
1.2-final. Making the default 1.2.1-dev would make it clearly beyond
1.2-rc2, but it would also imply that 1.2.1 is the next release, which I
don't think is the case. My plan was to leave the default as 1.2-dev until
1.2 is final, then switch the default to 1.3-dev. No official release will
ever be named '-dev' and so that suffix is not well ordered with respect to
release suffixes. Is that reasonable, or too confusing? How do other
projects do this?

Doug
Re: Version of Lucene (was: Re: cvs commit: jakarta-lucene/src/te st/org/apache/lucene HighFreqTerms.java) [ In reply to ]
on 10/22/01 10:51 AM, "Doug Cutting" <DCutting@grandcentral.com> wrote:

>> From: Jon Stevens [mailto:jon@latchkey.com]
>>
>>> -version=1.2-rc1
>>> +version=1.2-dev
>>
>> I don't think that you should go back a version. It can
>> confuse people. It should be 1.2.1-dev.
>
> I made this change when I realized that I could make releases by specifying
> -Dversion=xxx on the command line.

I wouldn't do that. The reason is that you want to be able to tag CVS with
the right version of Lucene each time you make a release.

> It's good to keep the version that folks
> build themselves different from an official release name.

Correct. In Apache land, we use -dev for that.

> And the build
> name should be beyond the current release. Whether 1.2-dev is earlier or
> later than 1.2-rc2 isn't clear: it could be (and is in fact) development for
> 1.2-final.

'rc' stands for release candidate. -dev stands for what is in CVS at the
moment. 'rc' is definitely after '-dev' because you have made a release
available from the site which is 'rc'.

When you go to a 'rc' status that means you are heading towards release.

> Making the default 1.2.1-dev would make it clearly beyond
> 1.2-rc2, but it would also imply that 1.2.1 is the next release, which I
> don't think is the case.

Then it should be 1.2-rc3-dev because you are working on rc3 at this point.

> My plan was to leave the default as 1.2-dev until
> 1.2 is final, then switch the default to 1.3-dev. No official release will
> ever be named '-dev' and so that suffix is not well ordered with respect to
> release suffixes. Is that reasonable, or too confusing? How do other
> projects do this?

I think what is in CVS should be 1.2-rc3-dev and the release should be
1.2-rc3 or 1.2-final depending on whether or not you feel that rc3 has fixed
all the issues in the previous releases and not added new problems.

-jon