Release Team BoF Summary

[Rolf Eike Beer]

Am Samstag 14 Juli 2012, 23:47:29 schrieb David Faure:
> On Saturday 14 July 2012 12:29:57 Michael Jansen wrote:
> > Why not marking an alpha, beta and rc as what it is and every other
> > project
> > out there already does? Why masking is as a stable release?
> > 
> > 4.N.1~alpha1
> > 4.N.1~alpha2
> > 4.N.1~beta1
> > 4.N.1~beta2
> > 4.N.1~rc
> > 4.N.1
> 
> This is fine in external communication and bugzilla, but we still need a
> value for KDE_VERSION_MAJOR, KDE_VERSION_MINOR and KDE_VERSION_RELEASE (see
> kdeversion.h[.cmake] in kdelibs).
> This is necessary in order to be able to write
> #if KDE_IS_VERSION(4, 9, 82).

I thought about this, too. But then I wondered: do we really need this? Why 
would we check anywhere if this is e.g. beta2? What if all versions since 
beta1 (alpha1? rc1?) internally say they are 4.10.0 as number (for bugzilla 
they should indeed use their string version, but that's another story). Who 
would need to distuinguish between a rc1 and a final release component (beyond 
bugzilla)? Since the API must be the same anyway, and working around certain 
behaviour of a rc1 compared to something else is bogus also, no?

Eike
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/release-team/attachments/20120715/5adc7ccd/attachment.sig>