Re: [scala-reports] r22920 - in scala/trunk: . META-INF

Personally, I feel the version number contained in trunk should just be
"trunk"; using any other indication will always be somewhat misleading.

The current habit of leaving "2.x.x" in trunk derives from a previous time
when just a single release branch was in use at any given time. However,
now we may very well have in the future a maintenance 2.8.x, a release
2.9.x, as well as experimental features in trunk, all at the same time.

At that time it might be a difficult choice to set the version number in
trunk; should it be "2.10", or "3.0", or...? It's actually neither: as long
as there is no release branch for a given version number, the code in trunk
is just in development. That's why I feel "trunk", or "devel" or similar,
would be a more appropriate naming choice...

Toni

Miles Sabin wrote:
> Wouldn't 2.9.0.alpha be a better choice? Otherwise we'll continue to
> have the version of trunk appearing to be less than the version of
> 2.8.1.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Miles
>

On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 4:54 PM, Antonio Cunei wrote:
> Personally, I feel the version number contained in trunk should just be
> "trunk"; using any other indication will always be somewhat misleading.
>
> The current habit of leaving "2.x.x" in trunk derives from a previous time
> when just a single release branch was in use at any given time. However, now
> we may very well have in the future a maintenance 2.8.x, a release 2.9.x, as
> well as experimental features in trunk, all at the same time.
>
> At that time it might be a difficult choice to set the version number in
> trunk; should it be "2.10", or "3.0", or...? It's actually neither: as long
> as there is no release branch for a given version number, the code in trunk
> is just in development. That's why I feel "trunk", or "devel" or similar,
> would be a more appropriate naming choice...

Understood. However trunk builds are being pushed to the Maven repos,
and they need to have some sort of version number which gets along
reasonably well with the version number of the release builds.
2.9.0-SNAPSHOT corresponding to 2.9.0.alpha wouldn't be completely
crazy.

Maybe Josh or David could comment?

Cheers,

Miles

On Thursday, September 02, 2010 12:03:17 pm Miles Sabin wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 4:54 PM, Antonio Cunei wrote:
> > Personally, I feel the version number contained in trunk should just be
> > "trunk"; using any other indication will always be somewhat misleading.
> >
> > The current habit of leaving "2.x.x" in trunk derives from a previous
> > time when just a single release branch was in use at any given time.
> > However, now we may very well have in the future a maintenance 2.8.x, a
> > release 2.9.x, as well as experimental features in trunk, all at the
> > same time.
> >
> > At that time it might be a difficult choice to set the version number in
> > trunk; should it be "2.10", or "3.0", or...? It's actually neither: as
> > long as there is no release branch for a given version number, the code
> > in trunk is just in development. That's why I feel "trunk", or "devel"
> > or similar, would be a more appropriate naming choice...
>
> Understood. However trunk builds are being pushed to the Maven repos,
> and they need to have some sort of version number which gets along
> reasonably well with the version number of the release builds.
> 2.9.0-SNAPSHOT corresponding to 2.9.0.alpha wouldn't be completely
> crazy.

You could use 2.8.9999-SNAPSHOT. There wouldn't be a commitment to what the
next version number will be. When there are both 2.8.x and 2.9.x branches,
bump it to 2.9.9999-SNAPSHOT.

-Mark

> Maybe Josh or David could comment?
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> Miles