On Mon, 2008-02-18 at 16:20 +0200, Omar Abdel-Wahab wrote:
On Feb 18, 2008 4:09 PM, Xavier Bestel <xavier.bestel@free.fr> wrote:
On Mon, 2008-02-18 at 15:30 +0200, Omar Abdel-Wahab wrote:
On Feb 18, 2008 3:08 PM, Xavier Bestel <xavier.bestel@free.fr> wrote:
So ? Ready when ready, I agree with that. But two successive versions should be called 5.x-1.(n) and 5.x-1.(n+1), with (n) and (n+1) being actual numbers, not 5.x-1.x-dev and 5.x-1.x-dev.
Look at the video module for example: not a single 5.x stable release, it went through numerous versions, all called 5.x-1.x-dev. If you don't use the update module, you're screwed.
What does it cost to just change the *name* of the versions ?
Xav
I still see this as an option.
We can not restrict or enforce a specific policy for module maintainers to follow. Once again, this is contributing. I code something and see it as useful for others so I put it on d.o. It's not my responsibility that someone doesn't see this as useful.
Then don't release anything and just let your users pull from CVS. If it was me, I would ban unnumbered versions, and just add a tag 'dev release' to warn the users to stay to the previous stable release, unless they're adventurous.
Not everyone has CVS know-how. Probably this is why there's a cron job on d.o. to grab a tar ball every now and then. You can't ban someone who wants to help others. Some great modules started as few lines of code someone saw as "useful". Organizing things is one thing, putting too many restrictions is another.
I'm not restricting anything. I just want a way to discriminate between releases. A small number attached to the name. A script can do it, and you won't have to change your way of releasing your module. Just so that 2 different versions don't have the same filename. Xav