Re: [development] code names for core releases?
On 9/19/06, Richard Archer <drupal.org@juggernaut.com.au> wrote:
At 7:59 PM -0400 19/9/06, Trae McCombs wrote:
Richard, please just go with a +1 or -1 for the idea.
My -1 for names has already been posted.
Fair enough.
If we must use a name, HEAD is just fine.
Richard, can I reiterate the arguments already made against this? Regarding HEAD/Trunk/cvs. HEAD is transient. Today's HEAD and not tomorrow's HEAD. If an issue or a documentation page refers to HEAD, what release exactly does this correspond to? Look at an issue from a year or two ago that refers to HEAD. Which release did the fix or the problem or the documented feature is in? Hard to say, and to find out you have to do extensive research. It would be easier to say 5.0, since it is the next release. But that is not known until all the desired features go in, then a decision is made on whether this is a major or minor release. Who knows, maybe FormAPI 7.0 and thingamajigg will make it in the next release and it is not 5.1 anymore, rather 6.0 ... So, from the time 5.0 is branched till we decide on what the next number will be a code name (bikeshed, peaceNbananas, whatever) refers to "the next release" after 5.0. Once it gets a number we can refer to either the number or the name since they are synonymous. Why is this concept so hard to grasp?
I have a Mac laptop. But frankly, I don't know whether it is Lynx, Panther, or Jaguar. And if I did, I don't know the running order of those releases - they actually make no sense to me. My mac runs OSX and X=10 and it's one more than OS9. The rest is marketing, and only matters in ad campaigns and plebian boasting. This issue is about clarifying which head we are talking about for future generations. So why not just "4.7 HEAD" or "5.0 HEAD"? It would contract to something cutesie like 4.7H, 5.0H of course. For the record, I am /more than happy/ to specify the upcoming release when referring to HEAD, if asked nicely. ;-) Simon Khalid B wrote:
On 9/19/06, Richard Archer <drupal.org@juggernaut.com.au> wrote:
At 7:59 PM -0400 19/9/06, Trae McCombs wrote:
Richard, please just go with a +1 or -1 for the idea.
My -1 for names has already been posted.
Fair enough.
If we must use a name, HEAD is just fine.
Richard, can I reiterate the arguments already made against this?
Regarding HEAD/Trunk/cvs.
HEAD is transient. Today's HEAD and not tomorrow's HEAD. If an issue or a documentation page refers to HEAD, what release exactly does this correspond to? Look at an issue from a year or two ago that refers to HEAD. Which release did the fix or the problem or the documented feature is in?
Hard to say, and to find out you have to do extensive research.
It would be easier to say 5.0, since it is the next release. But that is not known until all the desired features go in, then a decision is made on whether this is a major or minor release.
Who knows, maybe FormAPI 7.0 and thingamajigg will make it in the next release and it is not 5.1 anymore, rather 6.0 ...
So, from the time 5.0 is branched till we decide on what the next number will be a code name (bikeshed, peaceNbananas, whatever) refers to "the next release" after 5.0. Once it gets a number we can refer to either the number or the name since they are synonymous.
Why is this concept so hard to grasp?
Would it help if, someone better qualified than I, discuss the ubuntu+1 concept? I think (bear withme here, I'm not programmer) That $ubuntu would be whatever the current version is. Then ubuntu+1 would refer to whatever is in current development or HEAD. The only thing you'd use "code names" for is for stable releases. So in my thinking, let's say it's 4.7.x And 4.7 was called "bikeshed" 4.7.1 4.7.2 4.7.3 etc... would all still be refered to as "bikeshed" but just different point releases within bikeshed. There would be no need or desire to name each individual point release. Ok, I hope I haven't confused anyone as much as I probably already am :) Trae On 9/19/06, sime <info@urbits.com> wrote:
I have a Mac laptop. But frankly, I don't know whether it is Lynx, Panther, or Jaguar. And if I did, I don't know the running order of those releases - they actually make no sense to me. My mac runs OSX and X=10 and it's one more than OS9. The rest is marketing, and only matters in ad campaigns and plebian boasting.
This issue is about clarifying which head we are talking about for future generations. So why not just "4.7 HEAD" or "5.0 HEAD"? It would contract to something cutesie like 4.7H, 5.0H of course.
For the record, I am /more than happy/ to specify the upcoming release when referring to HEAD, if asked nicely. ;-)
Simon
Khalid B wrote:
On 9/19/06, Richard Archer <drupal.org@juggernaut.com.au> wrote:
At 7:59 PM -0400 19/9/06, Trae McCombs wrote:
Richard, please just go with a +1 or -1 for the idea.
My -1 for names has already been posted.
Fair enough.
If we must use a name, HEAD is just fine.
Richard, can I reiterate the arguments already made against this?
Regarding HEAD/Trunk/cvs.
HEAD is transient. Today's HEAD and not tomorrow's HEAD. If an issue or a documentation page refers to HEAD, what release exactly does this correspond to? Look at an issue from a year or two ago that refers to HEAD. Which release did the fix or the problem or the documented feature is in?
Hard to say, and to find out you have to do extensive research.
It would be easier to say 5.0, since it is the next release. But that is not known until all the desired features go in, then a decision is made on whether this is a major or minor release.
Who knows, maybe FormAPI 7.0 and thingamajigg will make it in the next release and it is not 5.1 anymore, rather 6.0 ...
So, from the time 5.0 is branched till we decide on what the next number will be a code name (bikeshed, peaceNbananas, whatever) refers to "the next release" after 5.0. Once it gets a number we can refer to either the number or the name since they are synonymous.
Why is this concept so hard to grasp?
-- Trae McCombs || http://occy.net/ Founder - Themes.org // Linux.com
sime schrieb:
I have a Mac laptop. But frankly, I don't know whether it is Lynx, Panther, or Jaguar. And if I did, I don't know the running order of those releases - they actually make no sense to me. My mac runs OSX and X=10 and it's one more than OS9. The rest is marketing, and only matters in ad campaigns and plebian boasting.
Sure, but you're a Mac *user*, and not a *developer* at Apple. The codenames are for *us*, the developers and not for the users. Again, codenames are for developers, to refer to a specific drupal development version. If the codenames can later be used for marketing purposes, why not. But that is not why we want to introduce them. For users, the release version number will do it.
This issue is about clarifying which head we are talking about for future generations. So why not just "4.7 HEAD" or "5.0 HEAD"? It would contract to something cutesie like 4.7H, 5.0H of course.
Again, as 5 people already stated, until 3 weeks ago we didn't know wether what is now known as 5.0 would be 4.8 or 5.0. So, I'm totally in favor of codenames for upcoming releases. +1 ;) regards, frando
2006/9/20, Frando (Franz Heinzmann) <frando@xcite-online.de>:
This issue is about clarifying which head we are talking about for future generations. So why not just "4.7 HEAD" or "5.0 HEAD"? It would contract to something cutesie like 4.7H, 5.0H of course.
Again, as 5 people already stated, until 3 weeks ago we didn't know wether what is now known as 5.0 would be 4.8 or 5.0.
How about last stable realse plus H/HEAD then? 4.7H would be the current HEAD.
Johan Forngren schrieb:
2006/9/20, Frando (Franz Heinzmann) <frando@xcite-online.de <mailto:frando@xcite-online.de>>:
> This issue is about clarifying which head we are talking about for > future generations. So why not just "4.7 HEAD" or "5.0 HEAD"? > It would contract to something cutesie like 4.7H, 5.0H of course.
Again, as 5 people already stated, until 3 weeks ago we didn't know wether what is now known as 5.0 would be 4.8 or 5.0.
How about last stable realse plus H/HEAD then? 4.7H would be the current HEAD.
Hmm, I think this would be confusing, as there is already a 4.7 HEAD version (the HEAD of the 4.7-branch). So if you're talking of 4.7 HEAD, I'd think of the latest version of the 4.7 branch and not the HEAD of the TRUNK. We could just use code names ;) regards, frando
At 8:32 PM -0400 19/9/06, Khalid B wrote:
Why is this concept so hard to grasp?
Speaking of hard to grasp... please place these RedHat releases in chronological order and indicate where a major paradigm shift occurred (i.e. change from RedHat Linux to Enterprise to Fedora): Colgate Enigma Guinness Halloween Hurricane Pensacola Picasso Psyche Rembrandt Shrike Taroon Tettnang Yarrow How much easier would this have been if I'd given you version numbers instead (RHL4, RHL6, RHEL2, RHEL3, FC1, FC2 etc). If this was the release history of Drupal, how would you go about remembering which feature was available in which release? As I've said, names are a silly solution to this problem. The correct solution is to either 1. define the next version number earlier or 2. improve tag-ability of versions. ...R.
participants (6)
-
Frando (Franz Heinzmann) -
Johan Forngren -
Khalid B -
Richard Archer -
sime -
Trae McCombs