[squeak-dev] Re: Renaming Squeak's system version from 'Squeak*alpha' to 'SqueakTrunk'

marcel.taeumel Marcel.Taeumel at hpi.de
Mon Jun 27 10:44:14 UTC 2016


Jakob Reschke wrote
> 2016-06-27 10:12 GMT+02:00 Taeumel, Marcel <

> Marcel.Taeumel@

> >:
>>
>> Would it make sense to keep track of the release build number and show
>> the
>> current increment in a separate way? Releases are basically branches from
>> Trunk. E.g.:
>>
>> source.squeak.org/trunk
>> source.squeak.org/squeak50
>>
>> At release time, the code base is identical. Then, things might get
>> cherry-picked from trunk into the release branch (here "squeak50"). Then,
>> the summative build number would be confusing because "14023" in squeak50
>> is
>> not the same as it is in trunk.
>>
>> What about doing it like GitHub branches and show "number of commits your
>> are behind the main branch"? It could displayed like this:
>>
>> "Squeak 5.0 (Build 14000 +23/-324)"
>>
>> This means that the current image is a release image, created from trunk
>> build 14000. There were 23 fixes in this branch since then and current
>> Trunk
>> is already 324 builds ahead.
>>
>> What do you think?
> 
> That looks very cryptic to me. IMHO, if you need to see your build's
> detailed relation to the initial release or the current trunk, you
> should ask the SCM system (Monticello) itself. If I were a newcomer,
> these +/- numbers would confuse me when I want to download a specific
> image version from the website. I would not expect someone to read a
> manual to understand the version numbering.
> 
> For reference, in the Maven/Java world, artifacts get a version
> suffixed with -SNAPSHOT until you do a "release". If you have an
> artifact with a version of 1.2.3-SNAPSHOT you know that there will be
> dozens of other builds with the same version number because the
> snapshot suffix indicates that this number "1.2.3" has not been fixed
> yet. That is, it is semantically equivalent to your current notion of
> (or suffix) "trunk". If you do a release, you strip the -SNAPSHOT from
> the version number (or rather jump to the intended fixed version
> number), commit, tag, publish that version, then bump the version
> number and append -SNAPSHOT again. The fixed version labelled "1.2.3"
> is not expected to ever change again, so if you download one of these
> artifacts, you can be quite sure it is identical to other "1.2.3"s of
> that artifact you download later. I consider this a sufficient scheme
> in many cases. However, it does not map to an alpha-beta-rc process,
> unless you put that into the less significant parts of the version
> number (which makes comparing versions harder for machines).

Hi Jakob,

you're right. This information would have to appear in the file name of the
downloads on the website. Hmm... right now, our build number is the sum of
all MCZ versions in the trunk update stream. The goal here is to find a
simple solution for that branching thing. Maybe the combination of release
number and build number is enough to discriminate.

I do not quite get your example about Maven/Java. I think that you relate to
the ideas of suffixing the Trunk versions with alpha, beta, rc1, ..., rcn,
alpha, ... However, my previous comment addresses the naming of release
versions only and the role of the respective build number. :-)

I think that an alternative to summing up the MCZ versions could be to only
show the most recent commit date/time of the packages in the update map.

Best,
Marcel



--
View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Renaming-Squeak-s-system-version-from-Squeak-alpha-to-SqueakTrunk-tp4902398p4903565.html
Sent from the Squeak - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list