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.
One more thing: IMO, some developers only commit code when it's tested thoroughly thus their -dev remains usable and production-ready almost all the time while others may commit code to allow other co-maintainers/users/developers to test.
Fine, but how do I know which ones ? A -dev version is a -dev version, nothing tells me if it's stable or not, especially not the bug tracker because YOU CAN'T RECOGNIZE VERSIONS.
I see no point in enforcing some policy regarding contributions releases.
Does that mean you wouldn't want to make life easier yo people who see that point ? Xav