Re: Version numbers of unreleased stable and development versions

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

On Mon, Jun 04 2007, Didier Verna wrote:

> OK, here's what I finally understand:
>
> - there's the development branch (the trunk) in CVS with the unstable version

Correct.

> - there's the stable branch in CVS

Correct.

> - there's ALSO a stable branch in GNU Emacs'CVS

Correct.  But apart from version numbers and missing XEmacs-specific
files, the two are identical.

> and then,
>
> - the unstable branch leads or should lead to official beta versions
>   from time to time

Correct.  But Lars doesn't label these "beta".  "beta" is the label
for the standalone stable releases (5.10.x, ...).

> - BOTH stable branches should lead to official patchlevel versions from
>   time to time
> - which in turn lead to official stable patchlevel releases.

Correct.

> So here's what I think would be the most human-readable version
> numbering scheme:
>
> In the trunk
> ============
> Gnus 6.0 beta 1 cvs 2007-08-01
>                     2007-08-02
>                     ..........
>                                Gnus 6.0 beta 1 => Tagged beta release
>
> Gnus 6.0 beta 2 cvs 2007-09-01
>                     2007-09-02
>                     ..........
>                                Gnus 6.0 beta 2 => Tagged beta release
>
> [ etc, finally leading to Gnus 6.0 ]

(Maybe your 6.0 numbers were simply examples, but for the record: No
Gnus will probably become 5.12/5.13)

What would be the value of `gnus-continuum-version' (used for
`gnus-convert-old-newsrc')?

> In the stable branch
> ====================
> (while the trunk gets Gnus 6.1 beta)
>
>                                Gnus 6.0        => Tagged stable release
>
> Gnus 6.0.1 cvs 2007-10-01
>            cvs 2007-10-02
>                ..........
>                                Gnus 6.0.1      => Tagged stable release
>
> Gnus 6.0.2 cvs 2007-11-01
>            cvs 2007-11-02
>                ..........
>                                Gnus 6.0.2      => Tagged stable release
>
> [ etc ]

From a user perspective, it may be confusing to get the difference
between Gnus 6.0.1 and Gnus 6.0 beta 1.

> In the GNU Emacs repository
> ===========================
>
> Gnus 6.0.1 emacs cvs 2007-10-01
>            emacs cvs 2007-10-02
>                      ..........
>                                Gnus 6.0.1
>
> Gnus 6.0.2 emacs cvs 2007-11-01
>            emacs cvs 2007-11-02
>                      ..........
>                                Gnus 6.0.2
>
> [ etc ]

A couple of years I suggested to add a third number to the Gnus
version in Emacs (22.1: 5.11.1, 22.2: 5.11.2, ...).  But Larsi and
others didn't think it's useful:
<http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/58421>.

> And of course, the stable patchlevel tags should be synchronized between
> our repository and that of GNU Emacs.
>
> So, to summarize:
>
> Unstable versions are: Gnus <major>.<minor> beta <level>
> Stable   versions are: Gnus <major>.<minor>.<patchlevel>
>
> For intermediate CVS versions, add: [emacs] cvs yyyy-mm-dd
>
> This is verbose, but quite clear I think. One could also wish to be more
> coherent between stable and beta numbering, in which case we could also
> think of: Gnus <major>.<minor> patchlevel <number>
>
> Wadya think ?

Personally, I'm not convinced that this would be clearer than an
odd/even thingie.  I'm waiting for Lars to make a decision so that we
can apply the new scheme and make a new 5.10.x release now that Emacs
22.1 has been released.

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