[development] Module developers, please do *proper* releases !

[Xavier Bestel]

On Mon, 2008-02-18 at 15:30 +0200, Omar Abdel-Wahab wrote:
> On Feb 18, 2008 3:08 PM, Xavier Bestel <xavier.bestel at 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