[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: release methodology
- From: John Belmonte <jvb@...>
- Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 14:53:29 +0900
A request to the Lua authors: please give some attention to your release
methodology. I don't have any ideal in mind, but suggest you take a
look at how things are done with popular projects that have survived
many years of growing pains such as gcc, Python, and Mozilla.
The main gripe I have is with release naming (including both "official"
and "work" releases, as you call them). For example recently an update
to 4.0 was made, called "4.0-update". What will happen if there needs
to be an update to the update? This also causes problems for downstream
packagers, as evident by the version on Daniel's Debian package:
lua40 (4.0-5) unstable; urgency=medium
* Applied the Lua 4.0 official patchset
When I see this I know something is wrong immediately, because the
number after the dash is supposed to represent the patch level for
converting the upstream package into Debian-land. Any changes by the
upstream authors should be represented in the number before the dash.
(Perhaps Daniel should have versioned it as "4.0update-1", but my
intended point is that you should have given the new release a name such
Another release naming problem is the arbitrary jump in calling
development releases 4.1work and then 5.0work. Deciding that the next
official release would be 5.0 was not a good reason to change the naming
in this work series. It has only created confusion, and made it harder
to search the archive for development since 4.0.
OpenPGP encrypted mail welcome.