Re: 7.2b1 ...

Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
> Marc G. Fournier writes:
>
> > CVS tags have been conssitent since v7.1 ...
>
> Allow me to consider that a joke:
>
> REL7_2_BETA1
> REL7_1_STABLE
> REL7_1_BETA3
> REL7_1_BETA2
> REL7_1_BETA
> REL7_1_2
> REL7_1
>
> So,
>
> Where is REL7_1_1? Where is REL7_1_BETA1? What does REL7_1_BETA belong
> to? What ever happened to beta4 thru beta6 or so, and rc1 through rc3?
> What is the CVS tag for 7.2b1? What release is the tag REL7_2_BETA1 for?

You could also consider the above as an IQ test ;)

> And if there is a 7.2b1, where is 7.2a1? And do you realise that in the
> GNU tradition, a release 7.2b would be a beta release leading to 7.3?

And in linux kernel tradition there would be no non-beta 7.3 and the
beta
for 7.2 would be 7.1.299 or something, and there would also be numerous
"brown paper bag" releases ;)

> And I won't even start talking about the names of the ChangeLog files
> which are fortunately gone.
>
> All of this requires just a minute of thought and will save countless
> people a headache.

As the result of "a minute of thought" is heavily dependent of the
thinker
I suggest that you do a writeup of yours, enumerating the rules for both
internal (code and CVS tags) and external development, alpha, beta and
release
numbering and naming as well as rules for when and how to apply them.

If you come up with something that all thinkers can agree, I'm sure it
will
be used from now on.

--------------------
Hannu