[Lazarus] revision numbers of each SVN tag?

Joost van der Sluis joost at cnoc.nl
Wed Apr 15 11:07:17 CEST 2009


Op dinsdag 14-04-2009 om 16:06 uur [tijdzone +0200], schreef Graeme
Geldenhuys:
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 3:31 PM, Florian Klaempfl
> <florian at freepascal.org> wrote:
> >
> > And what if someone realizes that one patch is missing?
> 
> Well, is that not what "release canditate" or stable branches are for?
> Users at least expect updates and backports of patches in a branch.
> Then test, test and test! Once everything is working, create a release
> tag based on that branch.
> 
> > Skip a release
> > number? We will never to this again, we did this in FPC 1.0.x times and
> > it caused a lot of confusion. Better a tag is moved ...
> 
> Isn't that what point releases are for??
> 
> * Release 0.9.26.
> * Oh crap, we didn't test enough and 0.9.26 is broken.
> * merge, fix and retest using the branch release 0.9.26 was based on.
> * Release 0.9.26.1
> 
> ....in the mean time new development continues on unstable trunk (0.9.27)...
> 
> If a release is broken one day after it has been released, then
> clearly not enough testing was done on that stable branch. In that
> case, release candidate branches should have a longer lifespan.
> 
> Just because a tag can have updates, doesn't mean it must. It goes
> against what most people know or expect and is even documented as such
> in the SubVersion docs. It simply adds more confusion. Once a release
> is out, it should be final. Point releases should follow from that to
> fix minor or overlooked issues.

Dream on....


and then get back to the real world.

Joost.

ps: Releasing a fpc release costs more then 4 months! FOUR MONTHS! And
still we had to cancel the release on the day of the planned release.




More information about the Lazarus mailing list