Release Team BoF Summary

[Michael Jansen]

On Sunday, July 15, 2012 02:10:52 PM Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On 15-07-2012 14:06, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
> > On 15-07-2012 11:57, Michael Jansen wrote:
> > 
> > I provided specific numbers before to make sure we were all
> > talking about the same - from the above I see we are not.
> > 
> > When you start working on the hypothetical 4.12 release, after
> > releasing the 4.11 release, we (Gentoo) are fine if you use one of
> > the 2 following schemes:
> > 
> > 4.12.71 -> 4.12.72 -> 4.12.81 -> 4.12.82 -> 4.12.83 -> 4.12.90 ->
> > 4.12.91 -> 4.12.0
> > 
> > 4.12.0-alpha1 -> 4.12.0-alpha2 -> 4.12.0-beta1 -> 4.12.0-beta2 ->
> > 4.12.0->beta3 -> 4.12.0-rc1 -> 4.12.0-rc2 -> 4.12.0
> 
> I re-read this email before sending it and still failed to catch one
> serious mistake in it.
> 
> The above should have been:
> 
> 4.11.71 -> 4.11.72 -> 4.11.81 -> 4.11.82 -> 4.11.83 -> 4.11.90 ->
> 4.11.91 -> 4.12.0
> 
> 4.12.0-alpha1 -> 4.12.0-alpha2 -> 4.12.0-beta1 -> 4.12.0-beta2 ->
> 4.12.0->beta3 -> 4.12.0-rc1 -> 4.12.0-rc2 -> 4.12.0
> 
> We need 4.12 pre-releases to have a lower number than the final 4.12.0
> release.

I though it would help, if not we can keep it internal (header) and add it 
into the version string. But keep it out of the package name.

It would solve the snapshot problem for us.

Let us postpone this until i have the script ready. I think the discussion is 
needed but currently a bit difficult because it is all really theoritcal now.

When the script is done vhanging the generated versions should be easy. 
Testing new schemes too because of the involved unit tests.

And if people see where i like to go i guess much of the discussion here is 
easier.

I will come back to all of this.


Mike
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/release-team/attachments/20120715/bb4fdd75/attachment.html>