jon at latchkey
Oct 22, 2001, 11:22 AM
Post #2 of 2
on 10/22/01 10:51 AM, "Doug Cutting" <DCutting [at] grandcentral> wrote:
Re: Version of Lucene (was: Re: cvs commit: jakarta-lucene/src/te st/org/apache/lucene HighFreqTerms.java)
[In reply to]
>> From: Jon Stevens [mailto:jon [at] latchkey]
>> I don't think that you should go back a version. It can
>> confuse people. It should be 1.2.1-dev.
> I made this change when I realized that I could make releases by specifying
> -Dversion=xxx on the command line.
I wouldn't do that. The reason is that you want to be able to tag CVS with
the right version of Lucene each time you make a release.
> It's good to keep the version that folks
> build themselves different from an official release name.
Correct. In Apache land, we use -dev for that.
> And the build
> name should be beyond the current release. Whether 1.2-dev is earlier or
> later than 1.2-rc2 isn't clear: it could be (and is in fact) development for
'rc' stands for release candidate. -dev stands for what is in CVS at the
moment. 'rc' is definitely after '-dev' because you have made a release
available from the site which is 'rc'.
When you go to a 'rc' status that means you are heading towards release.
> Making the default 1.2.1-dev would make it clearly beyond
> 1.2-rc2, but it would also imply that 1.2.1 is the next release, which I
> don't think is the case.
Then it should be 1.2-rc3-dev because you are working on rc3 at this point.
> My plan was to leave the default as 1.2-dev until
> 1.2 is final, then switch the default to 1.3-dev. No official release will
> ever be named '-dev' and so that suffix is not well ordered with respect to
> release suffixes. Is that reasonable, or too confusing? How do other
> projects do this?
I think what is in CVS should be 1.2-rc3-dev and the release should be
1.2-rc3 or 1.2-final depending on whether or not you feel that rc3 has fixed
all the issues in the previous releases and not added new problems.