From: Torne Wuff <torne_at_wolfpuppy.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 21:31:15 +0100

On 28 March 2012 20:55, Mike Giacomelli <giac2000_at_hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 3/28/2012 9:16 AM, Torne Wuff wrote:
>> > On 28 March 2012 12:21, Jonathan Gordon<jdgordy_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Sounds good to me. Not sure if I like "stable release" though, what
>> >> are other projects using? perhaps "official release"?
>> > official release makes it sound like the other builds are not
>> > official, which is the wrong distinction i'm trying to avoid. My
>> > experience reading the forums/irc/lists is that nontechnical people do
>> > not make the connection between "release" and "thing we specifically
>> > released as a specific thing, as opposed to an autobuild", and thus a
>> > term that relies on "release" meaning something to people is not
>> > ideal. Any build we offer for download looks like a release to them :)
>> >
>> I thought of "polished release", but that sounds a bit silly. :) What
>> about something like "LTS (long-term-service) build"?
>>
>
>
> Perhaps appending the current builds with the "pre_release_number"
> would make that more clear?
>
> For example:
>
> Rockbox-3.11   (3.11 release)
> Rockbox-pre_3.12-6e6f0c6-120322 (current build on the branch that will
> eventually become 3.12)
>
> Seems to me that linking the current builds to their eventual branch
> makes it much more clear how they chronologically fit together.

I am intending to develop a script that will produce a "sensible"
revision number (i.e. incorporating a sequentially incrementing
integer) from the git history which will also include teh release
branch it will eventually be. I've just not finished it yet, I haven't
poked at it for a while. You are right that it will help, but I think
it's a separate issue to the labelling of the categories of build
(which show up on places like the website sidebar, where specific
versions are not mentioned anyway).

> Mike

-- 
Torne Wuff
torne_at_wolfpuppy.org.uk

Received on 2012-03-28