| 1 |
On Fri, 2007-03-16 at 21:23 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Friday 16 March 2007, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Well that's the problem. When I use say _pre instead of _dev it gives |
| 4 |
> > off the wrong impression to users judging package by it's name. Since |
| 5 |
> > it's not a pre-release. A user may go upstream looking for some sort of |
| 6 |
> > pre-release. Which they won't find. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> isnt it though ? how is a "development" release different from a "pre" |
| 9 |
> release ? |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
I take it as a pre-release is more of an official release. Where in it |
| 12 |
would be easily found on a projects download page or else where. What I |
| 13 |
would consider a _dev release is something coming out of a developers |
| 14 |
space on the project. Not really announced say beyond the developers |
| 15 |
mailing list. In that same regard alpha's and beta's usually can be |
| 16 |
found on project download pages. Same I would assume for any |
| 17 |
pre-releases. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Given conceptually a development release is "pre" release. But not |
| 20 |
really advertised as such by upstream. Either way it would not really |
| 21 |
fit into our hierarchy. Most times the dev release will precede an alpha |
| 22 |
or beta, sometimes does skip and is before an official release. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
This might help a bit |
| 25 |
http://marc.info/?l=tomcat-dev&m=117251925901310&w=2 |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
In that example a _dev is more of a snapshot, which could also be |
| 28 |
considered as pre-release :) Good old interpretation of words. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
P.S. OTT |
| 31 |
With regard to above link and following development that closely. |
| 32 |
Between revisions of mod_jk, not only was there a security |
| 33 |
vulnerability. But in compatible changes effect certain file |
| 34 |
extensions .jsf, that a user reported. Which they only mentioned during |
| 35 |
stabilization of a given version (literally in stabilization bug). So in |
| 36 |
a sense a version with a problem got stabilized. But was an upstream |
| 37 |
bug, effecting a small subset. So did not really merit keeping the |
| 38 |
package from going stable for others. But bug was not filed with |
| 39 |
upstream either till 30+ days after release due to our stabilization |
| 40 |
policies and etc. |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
-- |
| 43 |
William L. Thomson Jr. |
| 44 |
Gentoo/Java |
Archives