Gentoo Archives: gentoo-portage-dev

From: Jason Stubbs <jstubbs@g.o>
To: gentoo-portage-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] .53, .54 and beyond...
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 01:57:28
Message-Id: 200512101055.43747.jstubbs@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] .53, .54 and beyond... by Marius Mauch
1 On Thursday 08 December 2005 09:24, Marius Mauch wrote:
2 > On Wed, 7 Dec 2005 21:33:00 +0900
3 >
4 > Jason Stubbs <jstubbs@g.o> wrote:
5 > > > It isn't about expectations.
6 > >
7 > > Ok, I misunderstood your previous posts on this topic then.
8 > >
9 > > > I just think it's bad engineering to use the same version prefix for
10 > > > two rather different codebases. ... After all, wasn't engineering
11 > > > the reason why we're going to increase the minor?
12 > >
13 > > I don't understand where the conflict comes in between the two.
14 > > Internally, the old 2.1 has been known as HEAD, trunk and now
15 > > 2.1-experimental. Externally, it's been known as 2.1.0_alpha20050718.
16 > > The set of new features available in 2.1.0_alpha20050718 are pretty
17 > > much all available in current trunk as far as I know... You'll need
18 > > to explain the issue in a little bit more detail.
19 >
20 > I guess it's a mindset thing. You say that "HEAD" and "trunk" are
21 > names, for me they are just locations that tell me _where_ I can find
22 > them, not _what_ they are. When savior goes into trunk at some
23 > point in the future, where will trunk go? branches/2.1-production?
24 > Then we have two 2.1 branches which codebases aren't really related,
25 > but for someone who hasn't worked on both it will look like one is
26 > based on the other.
27 >
28 > This is also the reason why I didn't just put the savior code into a
29 > branches/3.0 but gave it a symbolic name instead. *If* trunk and the
30 > existing 2.1 branch would have similar symbolic names I probably
31 > wouldn't have objected in the first place, but they don't (and
32 > retroactively adding one for 2.1 just for this seems like a bad idea).
33 > I guess one can say it's about identification. Yes, it plays with the
34 > usability aspects of version numbers, but in this case I prefer
35 > technical aspects over usability aspects.
36 >
37 > I hope this makes it a bit more understandable.
38
39 Yep, it makes more sense now. I'd really prefer to chalk it up as a fumble
40 though and just make sure it doesn't happen again rather than letting it
41 waterfall. Thinking about what Brian was saying, perhaps the best name for
42 the time being would be 2.0.20051210?
43
44 Real life has intervened though and I've already spent time that I don't have
45 on Gentoo today so I'll leave off on this one for a day or two. I'd really
46 like to hear what Brian thinks on all of the above as well.
47
48 --
49 Jason Stubbs
50 --
51 gentoo-portage-dev@g.o mailing list

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] .53, .54 and beyond... Brian Harring <ferringb@g.o>