[Seaside] So where is the "release" version of 3.7? - while we're on the subject

[Avi Bryant]

On 2/27/07, Dale Henrichs <dale.henrichs at gemstone.com> wrote:

> For example, I have a version of seaside stored in
> Seaside2.6g-dkh.18.mcz. This version contains Squeak source and has as
> an ancestor Seaside2.6a3-avi.73.mcz. There will be an equivalent version
> that contains the Gemstone source.
>
> After the discussion of the last few days, I assume that the squeak
> version should be stored in a package called Seaside2.6a3-dkh.74.mcz,
> since it contains code that is rooted in the 6a3 branch.
>
> My question is what should the version of the Gemstone code be called?
> It will be functionally equivalent to Seaside2.6a3-dkh.74.mcz, but will
> contain Gemstone specific code.

This isn't a direct answer to your question, but - after trying both
ways, I've found it better to keep the MC version number steadily
increasing across branches.  So if I have Seaside2.7-lr.100 and I want
to make a gemstone branch of it, that would be Seaside2.7g-avi.101,
not Seaside2.7g-avi.1.  That way, regardless of the branch names, we
can always get a pretty good sense of where a given version fits into
the chronology just by looking at the name.

BTW, for those who may feel like we're encoding way too much in the
names: the reality is that if you're looking at a list of versions,
whether in a repository or on your harddrive or in a mailing list
post, most of the time all you're going to see or want to type is the
filename.  So although it would be great to *also* have metadata for
all of this (branch, platform, number), I do think it's important to
talk about naming conventions as well.

Avi