Rockbox mail archiveSubject: Re: Changing build/release terminology
Re: Changing build/release terminology
From: Torne Wuff <torne_at_wolfpuppy.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 21:28:17 +0100
On 28 March 2012 19:13, Dominik Riebeling <dominik.riebeling_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 11:49 AM, Torne Wuff <torne_at_wolfpuppy.org.uk> wrote:
>> I propose that we do our best to switch to the following terminology
>> consistently in our written materials:
>> 1) "Stable release": e.g. stable release 3.10.
>> 2) "Development build": e.g. development build abc123g.
>> 3) "Archived development build": the daily snapshots Rockbox Utility
>> can install.
> Sounds sensible to me. But while at it, how about dropping those
> "daily" / "Archived development" builds, at least from documentation
> and Rockbox Utility? People install either the latest release or the
> current snapshot, and daily builds being somewhat more stable (which,
> IIRC, was the intention of them some years back) isn't the case at
As I understand it, the point of the daily snapshots is so that people
who do not have a compilation environment can refer back to them to
bisect when a bug was introduced. This lets them narrow down when a
change that broke something to a one day period of commits, which is a
lot less work for a developer to subsequently narrow down further. I
don't know that anyone ever actually does this, but I think "Archived
development builds" makes it clearer that this is what they are for.
If people want to discuss dropping them that's fine but let's do that
in another thread and ideally at a separate time, so as not to detract
from the main thing here :)
> And as an alternate proposal, how about "Development snapshot" instead
> of "Development build"?
> - Dominik
-- Torne Wuff torne_at_wolfpuppy.org.ukReceived on 2012-03-28