[ros-general] Re: [ros-dev] Why??

[David Hinz]

Well, I'm fine with it, but some other people seem to have problems with 
this system, so I thought of something without any sense, just numbers.

Like the build-numbers every MS-product has, e.g. Win XP has the 
build-number 2600

I would be more for a mix of a lot of different systems.

Create daily technology preview, that don't need to be "perfect", if 
they compile fine, they can be released. This would be the ones with the 
buildnumbers.
Then there were monthly releases, or maybe a release every month with 
the current numbering system, but also with buildnumbers.

And then we have the releases with codenames.

So as an example this all could look like this:

02.01.2006: Technology Preview: Build 0001 r20500
09.01.2006: Technology Preview: Build 0002 r20619
16.01.2006: Technology Preview: Build 0003 r20681
23.01.2006: Technology Preview: Build 0004 r20834
30.01.2006: Technology Preview: Build 0005 r21001
...
20.02.2006: Technology Preview: Build 0008 r21517
27.02.2006: Release 0.2.10: Build 0009 r21687
06.03.2006: Technology Preview: Build 0010 r21755
...
...
17.04.2006: Technology Preview: Build 0016 r22033
24.04.2006: Release 0.3.0: Build 0017 r22177 Codename God knows
01.05.2006: Technology Preview: Build 0018 r22257

You see, I would choose a weekly release plan.

The whole organisation on SVN would look a bit like this:

We have trunk, which would be our unstable tree.
Then we have our testing tree, which always has to compile fine and 
should at least boot and install fine too.
This branch would be feature freezed for one day every week, and after 
this the Technology Preview would be released.
In addition, the ordinary two monthly releases would be created out of 
this branch, we would just feature freeze it for a whole week and the 
last 3 days of the week it would be codefreezed, so on the whole it 
would be feature freezed for 8 days (including the one day before the 
last Technology Preview) and of this 8 days it would be code freezed for 
3 days (the last 3 days before the release).
So an ordinary release would be a Technology Preview, but in the week 
before its release the branch would be handled a bit differently than in 
other weeks.

I hope I didn't confuse you all too much, but for me this seems like a 
good idea.

Comments are highly appreciated.

Greets,

David Hinz

TwoTailedFox schrieb:
> 0.2.9 not good enough as a Version Number?
> 
> On 12/18/05, David Hinz <post.center at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I was talking about numbering the releases...
>>
>> TwoTailedFox schrieb:
>>> We have SVN Numbers o.o
>>>
>>> On 12/18/05, David Hinz <post.center at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Why don't we use buildnumbers?
>>>> Without any sense, just counting a number up and creating some major
>>>> releases with names from time to time.
>>>>
>>>> Just an idea...
>>>>
>>>> Greets,
>>>>
>>>> David Hinz
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ros-dev mailing list
>> Ros-dev at reactos.org
>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>>
> 
> 
> --
> "I had a handle on life, but then it broke"
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ros-dev mailing list
> Ros-dev at reactos.org
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>