[bt-devel] SVN code versioning scheme and Windows packages

[Gary Holmlund]

Eeli Kaikkonen wrote:
> We talked in IRC about version numbers of our svn code. Gary has
> released packages for Windows which all have the same version number,
> 2.4.svn.  It's not good to have different versions with the same name,
> so we should have a versioning scheme.
>
> "2.4.svn" is not necessarily very good because it's not a fixed
> convention. 2.4alfa/beta/rc are fixed conventions and people know they
> are prereleases. But for SVN code it's different. I've seen schemes like
>
> 2.3+svn
> 2.3+svn20091025
>
> which convey the idea of the previous version plus the later svn
> additions. It's not clear whether 2.4.svn points to a pre2.4 or post2.4
> version.
>
> Having 2.4.svn in our svn code is of course not a problem because it's
> meant to be placeholder for actual version number and is meant to be
> visible only for those who build the code themselves. But because we now
> have a situation where this has gone "public" it should be replaced with
> some convention when the packages are created.
>
> I suggest we use either "2.3+svn<date>" or "2.3+svnr<revision>". Another
> possibility would be to use "2.4.alpha1" etc. but because we don't tag
> them in svn they are not retracable to a revision.
>
> At the moment my final vote would go to "2.3+svnr<revision>".
>
> We also discussed with Gary about the upcoming Windows package naming.
> In my opinion we should avoid the situation where the package is tested
> only by few people and then released as "final". Xiphos did that and
> IIRC had an embarrassing situation when someone publicly reviewed the
> software and found some grave bugs which had gone unnoticed by
> developers. I'm quite sure that our quality isn't any better because we
> have had tests and bug reports only from couple of developers.
>
> I would add a "beta" marker for the first Windows packages even if they
> would be identical to final *nix versions. We would release 2.4beta1
> for Windows together with 2.4 final for *nix. They would be compiled
> from the same svn revision.
>
> Is it also time to discuss about announcing the Windows package? Are we
> going to release 2.3.3 or 2.4 next? Will we announce the Windows port
> publicly then?
>
>
>   Yours,
> 	Eeli Kaikkonen (Mr.), Oulu, Finland
> 	e-mail: eekaikko at mailx.studentx.oulux.fix (with no x)
>   
I think we should release the Windows version at beta along with the 2.4 
version, not a 2.3.x. I think there are to many changes to cleanly 
backport. My only intention of the current releases is for developer 
testing. The sourcearchives.com site I have posted at is my own site and 
not public, so only those reading bt-devel should be aware of these 
releases. I suggest we post the Windows beta on the Source Forge site 
when the time comes.

I agree with the suggestion of  "2.3+svnr<revision>" for the development 
releases. The version number in our CMakeLists.txt should be changed 
also. It shows up in the "About" dialog box.

Gary