confused: beta-1 release != head?
Hi, I am confused, I assumed beta 1 was just following head, in other words beta1 == head. But I am seeing references around of people mentinoing it as a different thing. What is it ? :) Ber -- | Bèr Kessels | webschuur.com | website development | | Jabber & Google Talk: ber@jabber.webschuur.com | http://bler.webschuur.com | http://www.webschuur.com |
On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 11:41:59AM +0100, Bèr Kessels wrote:
Hi,
I am confused, I assumed beta 1 was just following head, in other words beta1 == head.
But I am seeing references around of people mentinoing it as a different thing.
What is it ? :)
No, Beta1 was HEAD when it was released, But it changed as bugs get fixed and so. Someone correct me please if I'm wrong ;-) -- GNU/Linux registered user #224950 Proud Egyptian GNU/Linux User Group <www.eglug.org> Admin. Life powered by Debian, Homepage: www.foolab.org -- Don't send me any attachment in Micro$oft (.DOC, .PPT) format please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html Preferable attachments: .PDF, .HTML, .TXT Thanx for adding this text to Your signature
On 14 Dec 2005, at 11:41, Bèr Kessels wrote:
I am confused, I assumed beta 1 was just following head, in other words beta1 == head.
beta 1 is a snapshot of HEAD, taken 1-2 weeks ago. It is not updated automatically, although I could set it up such that the beta gets repackaged on a daily basis. At the moment, beta 1 lacks a number of important fixes. -- Dries Buytaert :: http://www.buytaert.net/
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 13:30:22 +0100, Dries Buytaert <dries.buytaert@gmail.com> wrote:
On 14 Dec 2005, at 11:41, Bèr Kessels wrote:
I am confused, I assumed beta 1 was just following head, in other words beta1 == head.
beta 1 is a snapshot of HEAD, taken 1-2 weeks ago. It is not updated automatically, although I could set it up such that the beta gets repackaged on a daily basis. At the moment, beta 1 lacks a number of important fixes.
I'd prefer that TAR files always remain static snapshots and not update automatically. When we talk about 4.7 beta 1, we know what state the code is in. If it's a moving target, it's much harder to tell if something is a new problem or existed when the release was first created. -- Tim Altman
On 14 Dec 2005, at 3:17 PM, Robert Douglass wrote:
Tim Altman wrote:
I'd prefer that TAR files always remain static snapshots and not update automatically.
remain static++
Aaaah .. the days of an always changing tar.gz file for drupal-core. no wait. those days were horrible. static++ -- Adrian Rossouw Drupal developer and Bryght Guy http://drupal.org | http://bryght.com
On 12/14/05 7:52 AM, Tim Altman wrote:
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 13:30:22 +0100, Dries Buytaert <dries.buytaert@gmail.com> wrote:
On 14 Dec 2005, at 11:41, Bèr Kessels wrote:
I am confused, I assumed beta 1 was just following head, in other words beta1 == head.
beta 1 is a snapshot of HEAD, taken 1-2 weeks ago. It is not updated automatically, although I could set it up such that the beta gets repackaged on a daily basis. At the moment, beta 1 lacks a number of important fixes.
I'd prefer that TAR files always remain static snapshots and not update automatically. When we talk about 4.7 beta 1, we know what state the code is in. If it's a moving target, it's much harder to tell if something is a new problem or existed when the release was first created.
+1 -- James Walker :: http://walkah.net/ :: xmpp:walkah@walkah.net
+1 for the sake of +1... What's wrong with nightly tarballs? Robin On 12/14/05, James Walker <walkah@walkah.net> wrote:
On 12/14/05 7:52 AM, Tim Altman wrote:
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 13:30:22 +0100, Dries Buytaert <dries.buytaert@gmail.com> wrote:
On 14 Dec 2005, at 11:41, Bèr Kessels wrote:
I am confused, I assumed beta 1 was just following head, in other words beta1 == head.
beta 1 is a snapshot of HEAD, taken 1-2 weeks ago. It is not updated automatically, although I could set it up such that the beta gets repackaged on a daily basis. At the moment, beta 1 lacks a number of important fixes.
I'd prefer that TAR files always remain static snapshots and not update automatically. When we talk about 4.7 beta 1, we know what state the code is in. If it's a moving target, it's much harder to tell if something is a new problem or existed when the release was first created.
+1
-- James Walker :: http://walkah.net/ :: xmpp:walkah@walkah.net
-- Robin Monks, CSL Web Administrator robin@civicspacelabs.org
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 15:34:40 +0100, Robin Monks <devlinks@gmail.com> wrote:
What's wrong with nightly tarballs?
Nothing, but they need to be marked as such. Calling nightly tarballs "4.7.0 Beta 1" doesn't work. -- Tim Altman
You two related? :o) Robin On 12/14/05, James Walker <walkah@walkah.net> wrote:On 12/14/05 9:34 AM, Robin Monks wrote:
+1 for the sake of +1...
What's wrong with nightly tarballs?
nothing when they're marked as such... but if someone claims to be filing a bug against "4.7-beta1" how do you know *which* one they're talking about? -- James Walker :: http://walkah.net/ :: xmpp:walkah@walkah.net On 12/14/05, Tim Altman <web@timaltman.com> wrote:
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 15:34:40 +0100, Robin Monks <devlinks@gmail.com> wrote:
What's wrong with nightly tarballs?
Nothing, but they need to be marked as such. Calling nightly tarballs "4.7.0 Beta 1" doesn't work.
-- Tim Altman
-- Robin Monks, CSL Web Administrator robin@civicspacelabs.org
I agree, but nightall tarballs should be made available for the not-so-cvs-savy. Robin On 12/14/05, Tim Altman <web@timaltman.com> wrote:
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 15:34:40 +0100, Robin Monks <devlinks@gmail.com> wrote:
What's wrong with nightly tarballs?
Nothing, but they need to be marked as such. Calling nightly tarballs "4.7.0 Beta 1" doesn't work.
-- Tim Altman
-- Robin Monks, CSL Web Administrator robin@civicspacelabs.org
On 12/14/05 9:34 AM, Robin Monks wrote:
+1 for the sake of +1...
What's wrong with nightly tarballs?
nothing when they're marked as such... but if someone claims to be filing a bug against "4.7-beta1" how do you know *which* one they're talking about? -- James Walker :: http://walkah.net/ :: xmpp:walkah@walkah.net
Nothing wrong with them, as long as every one knows they are a moving target. CVS is a nightly build. Beta 1 is supposed to be a snapshot in time, and hence should not change. So, in essence, if one wants nightly builds, go for CVS, if you want a beta or release candidate then beta 1 it is (or rc when it comes out). On 12/14/05, Robin Monks <devlinks@gmail.com> wrote:
+1 for the sake of +1...
What's wrong with nightly tarballs?
Robin
On 12/14/05, James Walker <walkah@walkah.net > wrote:
On 12/14/05 7:52 AM, Tim Altman wrote:
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 13:30:22 +0100, Dries Buytaert <dries.buytaert@gmail.com> wrote:
On 14 Dec 2005, at 11:41, Bèr Kessels wrote:
I am confused, I assumed beta 1 was just following head, in other words beta1 == head.
beta 1 is a snapshot of HEAD, taken 1-2 weeks ago. It is not updated automatically, although I could set it up such that the beta gets repackaged on a daily basis. At the moment, beta 1 lacks a number of important fixes.
I'd prefer that TAR files always remain static snapshots and not update automatically. When we talk about 4.7 beta 1, we know what state the code is in. If it's a moving target, it's much harder to tell if something is a new problem or existed when the release was first created.
+1
-- James Walker :: http://walkah.net/ :: xmpp:walkah@walkah.net
-- Robin Monks, CSL Web Administrator robin@civicspacelabs.org
On 12/14/05, Khalid B <kb@2bits.com> wrote:
Nothing wrong with them, as long as every one knows they are a moving target.
CVS is a nightly build. Beta 1 is supposed to be a snapshot in time, and hence should not change.
So, in essence, if one wants nightly builds, go for CVS, if you want a beta or release candidate then beta 1 it is (or rc when it comes out).
As I said, not everyone wants to deal with CVS. Robin On 12/14/05, Robin Monks <devlinks@gmail.com> wrote:
+1 for the sake of +1...
What's wrong with nightly tarballs?
Robin
On 12/14/05, James Walker <walkah@walkah.net > wrote:
On 12/14/05 7:52 AM, Tim Altman wrote:
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 13:30:22 +0100, Dries Buytaert <dries.buytaert@gmail.com> wrote:
On 14 Dec 2005, at 11:41, Bèr Kessels wrote:
I am confused, I assumed beta 1 was just following head, in other words beta1 == head.
beta 1 is a snapshot of HEAD, taken 1-2 weeks ago. It is not updated automatically, although I could set it up such that the beta gets repackaged on a daily basis. At the moment, beta 1 lacks a number of important fixes.
I'd prefer that TAR files always remain static snapshots and not update automatically. When we talk about 4.7 beta 1, we know what state the code is in. If it's a moving target, it's much harder to tell if something is a new problem or existed when the release was first created.
+1
-- James Walker :: http://walkah.net/ :: xmpp:walkah@walkah.net
-- Robin Monks, CSL Web Administrator robin@civicspacelabs.org
-- Robin Monks, CSL Web Administrator robin@civicspacelabs.org
(Sending to list) You don't. Here it is http://drupal.org/project/Drupal%20project/cvs No CVS knowledge required. On 12/14/05, Robin Monks <devlinks@gmail.com> wrote:
On 12/14/05, Khalid B <kb@2bits.com> wrote:
Nothing wrong with them, as long as every one knows they are a moving target.
CVS is a nightly build. Beta 1 is supposed to be a snapshot in time, and hence should not change.
So, in essence, if one wants nightly builds, go for CVS, if you want a beta or release candidate then beta 1 it is (or rc when it comes out).
As I said, not everyone wants to deal with CVS.
Robin
On 12/14/05, Robin Monks <devlinks@gmail.com> wrote:
+1 for the sake of +1...
What's wrong with nightly tarballs?
Robin
On 12/14/05, James Walker <walkah@walkah.net > wrote:
On 12/14/05 7:52 AM, Tim Altman wrote:
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 13:30:22 +0100, Dries Buytaert <dries.buytaert@gmail.com> wrote:
On 14 Dec 2005, at 11:41, Bèr Kessels wrote: > I am confused, I assumed beta 1 was just following head, in other > words beta1 > == head.
beta 1 is a snapshot of HEAD, taken 1-2 weeks ago. It is not updated automatically, although I could set it up such that the beta gets repackaged on a daily basis. At the moment, beta 1 lacks a number of important fixes.
I'd prefer that TAR files always remain static snapshots and not update automatically. When we talk about 4.7 beta 1, we know what state the code is in. If it's a moving target, it's much harder to tell if something is a new problem or existed when the release was first created.
+1
-- James Walker :: http://walkah.net/ :: xmpp:walkah@walkah.net
-- Robin Monks, CSL Web Administrator robin@civicspacelabs.org
--
Robin Monks, CSL Web Administrator robin@civicspacelabs.org
Well, all problems solved, the world is happy again :-) Robin On 12/14/05, Khalid B <kb@2bits.com> wrote:
(Sending to list)
You don't.
Here it is http://drupal.org/project/Drupal%20project/cvs
No CVS knowledge required.
On 12/14/05, Robin Monks <devlinks@gmail.com> wrote:
On 12/14/05, Khalid B <kb@2bits.com> wrote:
Nothing wrong with them, as long as every one knows they are a moving target.
CVS is a nightly build. Beta 1 is supposed to be a snapshot in time,
and
hence
should not change.
So, in essence, if one wants nightly builds, go for CVS, if you want a beta or release candidate then beta 1 it is (or rc when it comes out).
As I said, not everyone wants to deal with CVS.
Robin
On 12/14/05, Robin Monks <devlinks@gmail.com> wrote:
+1 for the sake of +1...
What's wrong with nightly tarballs?
Robin
On 12/14/05, James Walker <walkah@walkah.net > wrote:
On 12/14/05 7:52 AM, Tim Altman wrote:
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 13:30:22 +0100, Dries Buytaert <dries.buytaert@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 14 Dec 2005, at 11:41, Bèr Kessels wrote: >> I am confused, I assumed beta 1 was just following head, in other >> words beta1 >> == head. > > beta 1 is a snapshot of HEAD, taken 1-2 weeks ago. It is not updated > automatically, although I could set it up such that the beta gets > repackaged on a daily basis. At the moment, beta 1 lacks a number of > important fixes.
I'd prefer that TAR files always remain static snapshots and not update automatically. When we talk about 4.7 beta 1, we know what state the code is in. If it's a moving target, it's much harder to tell if something is a new problem or existed when the release was first created.
+1
-- James Walker :: http://walkah.net/ :: xmpp:walkah@walkah.net
-- Robin Monks, CSL Web Administrator robin@civicspacelabs.org
--
Robin Monks, CSL Web Administrator robin@civicspacelabs.org
-- Robin Monks, CSL Web Administrator robin@civicspacelabs.org
On 14 Dec, 2005, at 8:47, Robin Monks wrote:
On 12/14/05, Khalid B <kb@2bits.com> wrote:
Nothing wrong with them, as long as every one knows they are a moving target.
CVS is a nightly build. Beta 1 is supposed to be a snapshot in time, and hence should not change.
So, in essence, if one wants nightly builds, go for CVS, if you want a beta or release candidate then beta 1 it is (or rc when it comes out).
As I said, not everyone wants to deal with CVS.
You don't have to deal with CVS to get a head build. You use the 'cvs' version of Drupal <http://drupal.org/project/Drupal%20project/ cvs>. That is essentially a nightly build (or an every-twelve-hour build or whatever), it's just not labeled as such. Maybe it should be re-labeled or explicitly stated that the 'cvs' version is the bleeding-edge code.
On 12/14/05, Jim Riggs <drupal-lists@jimandlissa.com> wrote:
...
As I said, not everyone wants to deal with CVS.
You don't have to deal with CVS to get a head build. You use the 'cvs' version of Drupal <http://drupal.org/project/Drupal%20project/ cvs>. That is essentially a nightly build (or an every-twelve-hour build or whatever), it's just not labeled as such. Maybe it should be re-labeled or explicitly stated that the 'cvs' version is the bleeding-edge code.
Yes, that might be confusing. Robin -- Robin Monks, CSL Web Administrator robin@civicspacelabs.org
+1 for the sake of +1...
What's wrong with nightly tarballs?
If you download some ....-nightly.tgz then it is fine. If you download a ... x.y.z.tgz, then you are not going to think it is rebuilt periodically (with the same x.y.z suffix). The same goes for the beta suffix. I am also +1 on keeing the named tarballs static. We can have nightly tarballs as long as they are marked and named as such. Goba
My preference would be for beta release to get a symbolic tag in the CVS, and critical fixes could be made on a beta1 branch if needed. This is especially helpful if the time between beta releases is longer (like 2+ weeks) because it'd help us encourage people to beta test using the released beta (which has benefits of not being a moving target) , but not leave them completely high and dry in the face of security critical bugs, for example. Ken On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 01:30:22PM +0100, Dries Buytaert wrote:
On 14 Dec 2005, at 11:41, B?r Kessels wrote:
I am confused, I assumed beta 1 was just following head, in other words beta1 == head.
beta 1 is a snapshot of HEAD, taken 1-2 weeks ago. It is not updated automatically, although I could set it up such that the beta gets repackaged on a daily basis. At the moment, beta 1 lacks a number of important fixes.
-- Dries Buytaert :: http://www.buytaert.net/
Knite wrote:
My preference would be for beta release to get a symbolic tag in the CVS, and critical fixes could be made on a beta1 branch if needed.
This is especially helpful if the time between beta releases is longer (like 2+ weeks) because it'd help us encourage people to beta test using the released beta (which has benefits of not being a moving target) , but not leave them completely high and dry in the face of security critical bugs, for example.
Hm, the beta is not supposed to be used in production environment. Beta means that we know it has bugs. Goba
participants (12)
-
Adrian Rossouw -
Bèr Kessels -
Dries Buytaert -
Gabor Hojtsy -
James Walker -
Jim Riggs -
Khalid B -
Knite -
Mohammed Sameer -
Robert Douglass -
Robin Monks -
Tim Altman