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