Re: Version numbers of unreleased stable and development versions

[Reiner Steib <reinersteib+gmane@imap.cc>]

On Tue, May 29 2007, Didier Verna wrote:

> Reiner Steib <reinersteib+gmane@imap.cc> wrote:
>> One of the major points for this discussion was to distinguish CVS
>> versions and released version.  Now, if a user has "5.10.8" you can't
>> tell if its from 2006-04-11 or 2007-05-28, i.e. it's unclear which
>> bugs should already be fixed in this version.
>
>         We should have CVS tags in all files. 

?

> But if you really want to give explicit versions to CVS
> intermediate, then you can use a timestamp.

I don't argue strongly for this, but it would be okay with me:

,----[ http://article.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/62634 ]
| Instead of "+cvs" we might even think about adding the date e.g.
| "+20060411".  For this we'd need either CVS keywords or bump it
| manually from time to time.  Hm, `gnus-cvs-version' could also be a
| number like 20060411.
`----

>> Upto now we had/have:
>> - final = in Emacs = { 5.9, 5.11, 5.13, ... } 
>> - beta = standalone release = { 5.8.x, 5.10.x, ... }
>> - development = (prefixed named versions = ) = { Oort Gnus 0.y, No
>>   Gnus 0.y, ...)
>>
>> How do you suggest to apply your scheme to these Gnus versions (i.e. 
>> fill the table from my message with your suggested version numbers)?
>
>         Thanks for this table. I'm actually beginning to understand the
> Gnus version numbering scheme now that we're about to change it ;-) 

;-)

> I can't quite answer your question because I still don't understand
> the relation between No Gnus and Gnus 5.10.*.

,----[ (info "(gnus-coding)Gnus Maintainance Guide"), texi/gnus-coding.texi ]
| 2.1 Stable and development versions
| ===================================
| 
| The development of Gnus normally is done on the CVS trunk, i.e. there
| are no separate branches to develop and test new features.  Most of the
| time, the trunk is developed quite actively with more or less daily
| changes.  Only after a new major release, e.g. 5.10.1, there's usually a
| feature period of several months.  After the release of Gnus 5.10.6 the
| development of new features started again on the trunk while the 5.10
| series is continued on the stable branch (v5-10) from which more stable
| releases will be done when needed (5.10.7, ...).  *Note Gnus
| Development: (gnus)Gnus Development.
| 
|    Stable releases of Gnus finally become part of Emacs.  E.g. Gnus 5.8
| became a part of Emacs 21 (relabeled to Gnus 5.9).  The 5.10 series will
| become part of Emacs 22 (as Gnus 5.11).
`----

Is this sufficient?

> Perhaps I would, if the table was presented as a graph of CVS
> branches.

There are two relevant branches: trunk (= development version = No
Gnus) and stable (= v5-10 = 5.10.n n > 6).

> Besides, your table lacks any stable realease of Gnus (I know, Gnus
> is never stable ;-).

I wrote:

,----
| In Emacs (final versions of Gnus):
|   Emacs 21: Gnus 5.9
|   Emacs 22: Gnus 5.11
|   Emacs 23: Gnus 5.13
`----

In the table, you may add it as a left-most column which only contains
"5.11".

> But if this table means that we actually have *two* development branches
> in parallel (the 5.10 and the trunk), then that's not the numbering
> scheme which is broken; it's the development process !

The v5-10 branch is active (we add bug fixes, doc-fixes, ...), but
there is no additions of new features (sometimes one can argue about
whether a change is still a bugfix or already a new feature).

> (again, I'm not quite sure but I fear this has something to do with
> GNU Emacs people committing changes to Gnus in the GNU Emacs
> repository instead of the Gnus CVS archive)

Does `texi/gnus-coding.texi' explain it?  If not, please explain.

,----[ (info "(gnus-coding)Gnus Maintainance Guide") ]
| 2.2 Syncing
`----

Bye, Reiner.
-- 
       ,,,
      (o o)
---ooO-(_)-Ooo---  |  PGP key available  |  http://rsteib.home.pages.de/