Re: Version numbering for release DECISION!

[Bill Hacker <wbh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Matthew Dillon wrote:

> :>     -CURRENT	Will indicate a build based on the head of the CVS tree.
> :> 
> :>     -WORKING	Will indicate a build baesd on our current stable tag
> :> 
> :> 		I am going to rename the tag from DragonFly_Stable to
> :> 		DragonFly_Working to avoid confusion, but not today.  This
> :> 		tag has turned out to be quite important because it allows
> :> 		developers to stay reasonably up to date but take less
> :> 		risk then the people running CURRENT.
> :> 
> :>     -RELEASE	Will indicate a build based on a release branch.
> :> 
> :>     -STABLE	Will indicate a build based on a post-release branch.
>
>     We can change WORKING to something else, if someone can think up of a
>     better name, but the other names are set in stone.

Looks to me as if:

CURRENT is 'alpha',

WORKING is beta,

RELEASE is 'gold' or production-ready

STABLE is 'gold + security patches & bug fixes'.

>     What I am calling WORKING right now is unique to DragonFly... FreeBSD
>     doesn't have a slip tag in their HEAD branch to track good working points
>     during development.

Given that it is not quite the same as a 'Release Candidate'
- but from 'userland' that may be closest.  IOW - not ready
for production use, but not as 'bleeding edge' as CURRENT, either.

>     The other tags are fairly similar to their FreeBSD counterparts once
>     you compensate for the fact that they are doing a two-track development
>     model verses our one-track development model.
>
> 					-Matt
> 					Matthew Dillon 
> 					<dillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>


'LATEST-BETA'    'LATEST-RC' ?   'BETA-RELEASE'
'TESTED', 'DEVEL', 'IN WORK', 'IN PROGRESS'
'PROGRESSIVE', 'WAYPOINT'

'PREVIEW' ?

'PREVIEW' has worked elesewhere - keeps folks aware it
may build OK, but is not yet recommended for 'production',
and doesn't signify it is, or will necessarily ever be, an 'RC'.


Bill


. ....'PASTEURIZED', 'PRE_COOKED' or 'HALF-BAKED' even ;-)