[Omake] Releases and versioning (0.9.8.2, 0.9.8.3, 0.9.9, 0.90.0, ...?)

[Jason Hickey]

On May 30, 2007, at 2:51 PM, Aleksey Nogin wrote:

> To make sure this all finally happens within a reasonable amount of  
> time, I can commit to:
>  - Not holding off 0.9.8.3 unless a new "really bad" bug is found;  
> any sort of non-show-stopper bug will be dealt with in 0.9.8.4, if  
> necessary
>
>  - Not holding off the "unstable" release unless if fails to self- 
> build on one of the platforms we care about.

I can accept that.

As for the unstable,

    1. Either we
       a. Apply each jumbo patch in topological order to produce a
          release canidate with a clean history, or
       b. use svn cp to create it from an existing jumbo entry.

       I don't know which is better.  Note that I won't be keeping the
       git around, so it _might_ be nicer to keep the features cleanly
       separated in the svn history (initially).

    2. On the web, I believe the right thing to do is to put
       up the web site/documentation for the unstable branch too.

       I don't know if it should be called "roadmap", or "what's new".

> The problem I am trying to solve is reflecting the magnitude of  
> each change in version numbers, while maintaining the version  
> monotonicity for various version comparison functions (rpm, OMake,  
> Windows installer, etc). Calling a pre-1.0 version 1.0.something  
> will surely break monotonicity. I'd suggest 0.99.0.x, but that's  
> too easy to confuse with 0.9.9... We can do 0.10.x, but 0.90.x is  
> better at implying "these are the final days before 1.0".

I don't really care, just make a decision that is not one of the  
0.??.* schemes.

Note that 1.0.0.pre.* does not connote stability.  However, it does  
connote change, which is very accurate.

IMHO, the stability argument is a lost cause.  For stability, you  
want 0.9.8.3, and it may remain that way for quite some time.  This  
kind of situation is not all that unusual in the free software  
community.  If you are waiting for a time of calm and stability, when  
the world is just perfect like it is, and that time in nirvana can be  
called "1.0", then we are already dead.

Also, if we mention it at run time, on the web site, on the list,  
etc. I believe people will understand.  And besides, it isn't that  
unstable.  Sure, it has only passed the "Jason test", but that is  
already pretty stressful.  That main problems are likely to be  
coverage, syntax changes, etc.

*** omake: THIS VERSION OF OMAKE IS UNDERGOING CHANGES!
*** omake: It may act differently from what you expect.
*** omake: If you encounter problems,
*** omake: consider using a stable version,
*** omake: like 0.9.8.3.

Jason

--
Jason Hickey                  http://www.cs.caltech.edu/~jyh
Caltech Computer Science      Tel: 626-395-6568 FAX: 626-792-4257