< Previous by Date Date Index Next by Date >
< Previous in Thread Thread Index Next in Thread >

Re: [reSIProcate] Calling all devels: Getting release notes ready, other release work.



On 2006.08.21, at 08:59 , Byron Campen wrote:

-Naming-scheme for this release (and following releases)

I have no particular religion around this, but it needs to be a functional name. That means the top-level directory needs to represent the project and version number. We've used BOTH resip and resiprocate in the past. I think we should use resiprocate, since that is the name of the project.

Therefore I loosely propose (as both administrator and someone with software management experience) we use names of the form:

resiprocate-MAJOR.MINOR[.PATCH]-ANNOT

Where MAJOR and MINOR would likely be 1 and 0 respectively and for now there is no patch level. -ANNOT would be things like 'alpha', 'beta', etc. OR, 'RC1' ... 'RC3' ... 'RC'n until we are happy to promote to an annotation free name.

Things like the following would be a reasonable progression:
resiprocate-1.0-rc-1
resiprocate-1.0-rc-2
resiprocate-1.0-rc-3
resiprocate-1.0

The critical elements here would be that resiprocate-1.0 would be IDENTICAL to the last -rc- release done and differs only in tagging.

No need to embed the subversion version number because we are treating these as TAGS not branches.

THAT SAID, there is an alternate approach: we create a resiprocate-1.0-beta BRANCH and tweak it until we agree that a particular svn revision represents a 'good to go' 1.0 release. Then we 'tag' and release. Any changes on the -beta branch would need merging back to trunk.

Anyone have a preference? The advantage of the beta branch is that it is slightly less confusing IFF we can remember that snapshots need to include the svnrevision number in the tarball name UNTIL we go 'gold'.

The -rc-1 through -rc-n approach has the advantage of being very explicit.

Comments?

Alan