From: Daniel Shahaf <d.s@daniel.shahaf.name>
To: Zsh Workers List <zsh-workers@zsh.org>
Subject: Re: Test release: 5.7.1-test-1
Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2019 05:16:29 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191215051629.ikoezos6bsnirplf@tarpaulin.shahaf.local2> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <EBE37906-0F31-428F-A501-4ADDC9FE2009@dana.is>
dana wrote on Sat, Dec 14, 2019 at 22:32:57 -0600:
> On 14 Dec 2019, at 21:58, Daniel Shahaf <d.s@daniel.shahaf.name> wrote:
> > README shouldn't say "This is version 5.8. It is a stable
> > release." yet. The tarball is 5.7.1-test-1, not 5.8, and it's a test
> > release, not stable release; that's what README should state.
>
> Oh. I had just copied what we did for 5.7:
>
> https://github.com/zsh-users/zsh/commit/9dbde9e9c7d22ee0d301e4a2fecf97906d1ddce9
>
> If that's undesirable, i'll add it to the release instructions later.
Ah, I didn't realize there was precedent for that.
I _still_ think -test- tarballs should not describe themselves as the final
release, but if we have precedent for doing things differently then
perhaps there's a good reason for that that I'm overlooking.
> On a related note, i also wasn't clear on how the -dev- and -test- numbering
> are meant to work. Previous first -test- releases have either reset the number
> to 1 or incremented the last -dev- number (e.g., -dev-1 to -test-2). The
> release instructions say -dev-$((i++)) and -test-$((++j)), which i guess means
> start from -dev-0 and -test-1, but it's not quite explicit. Is that correct?
Yes, that's the intended meaning, and yes, I could've written it more
explicitly.
> (If they do have different 'base indexes', why?)
I just documented what I had determined to be precedent from looking at
git history at the time of writing. I'm not aware of any reason beyond
this. I do think, however, that the version number of master should
increase chronologically. I assume most packaging systems would
consider any test version number as larger than any (hypothetical) dev
version because 'dev' < 'test' as ASCII strings (i.e., as determined by
strcmp(3)); for example, Debian:
$ dpkg --compare-versions '5.7.1-dev-9' lt '5.7.1-test-0' && echo yes
yes
$
This implies that the release after ${V}-dev-5 could be either
${V}-test-1 or ${V}-test-6, insofar as version number ordering is
concerned. I don't have a strong preference between these two.
> Lastly, should the 'latest version' on Sourceforge be updated to point to test
> releases, or only stable ones? The instructions didn't make a distinction, so
> i updated it, but that's another thing that might be made more explicit.
Actually, I'd err on the side of *not* updating it, since it's what SF
offers as the default download, and we don't want people to download
test releases unless they opt-in to that.
No fault to you for guessing wrongly — on the contrary, kudos for taking
action and asking on-list afterwards — but I suggest that you revert
this. You can do this by selecting zsh-5.7.1.tar.xz in the file manager
and clicking the "Make this the recommended version" button in the UI (I
don't remember the exact phrasing).
If there's a separate "Recommended beta version" thing, we could use
that. Otherwise, 5.7.1 should remain the recommended production/stable
version until 5.8 comes along.
> PS: You might've noticed that i also forgot to update the change log before
> tagging; i can't blame that on confusion, i just messed up :(
No worries. Just make sure it's documented clearly in the checklist for
next time ☺
Cheers,
Daniel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-12-15 5:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-12-14 19:20 dana
2019-12-15 3:58 ` Daniel Shahaf
2019-12-15 4:32 ` dana
2019-12-15 5:16 ` Daniel Shahaf [this message]
2019-12-15 5:50 ` dana
2019-12-15 18:28 ` Peter Stephenson
2019-12-16 3:55 ` Daniel Shahaf
2019-12-16 22:11 ` dana
2019-12-17 1:16 ` Daniel Shahaf
2019-12-20 21:26 ` dana
2019-12-21 8:13 ` Daniel Shahaf
2019-12-16 1:21 ` dana
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20191215051629.ikoezos6bsnirplf@tarpaulin.shahaf.local2 \
--to=d.s@daniel.shahaf.name \
--cc=zsh-workers@zsh.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://git.vuxu.org/mirror/zsh/
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).