[Zeek-Dev] Zeek 3.0.0+ "master" versioning process change

[Johanna Amann]

On 24 Jul 2019, at 20:36, Jon Siwek wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 6:02 PM Johanna Amann <johanna at icir.org> 
> wrote:
>>
>> Actually, thinking about it some more - could we just not have the
>> -alpha (or -dev) label, and go back to how it was before - with a
>> changed meaning?
>>
>> so - just 3.1.0-[commit-number] for the development builds.
>
> Our versioning script uses the last-reachable tag in "master".  At the
> time we start the 3.1.0 development cycle, we don't have that 3.1.0
> tag, and also that tag won't ever be made along the "master" branch,
> it will be made sometime later within the "release/3.1" branch.

I might be slow here - but doesn’t the same problem apply to the 
proposed naming scheme?

So - you proposed master using 3.1.0-alpha.X. I was asking why we 
can’t just do 3.1.0-X instead, given that in semver numbering 
everything still stays consistent. I agree that this will need changes 
to our versioning scripts :)

>>> I generally like this - the only thing that I am not sure about is 
>>> the
>>> alpha label.
>>>
>>> I get that it works great with alphabetic ordering - but for me 
>>> alpha
>>> tends to signify some kind of test release.
>
> What's meant by "test release" here ?
>
> Could essentially consider any given commit in "master" to be a "test
> release" -- and if we decide to be more formal/vocal about providing
> builds of "master" (e.g. the OBS nightlies), then "alpha" may describe
> exactly what you think it signifies ?

True. I still like the sound of -dev and -rc better; and just not having 
a -alpha/-dev label even more - but I admit that that is a purely 
personal preference to some degree.

Another advantage of them is that they keep the version numbers somewhat 
shorter :)

Johanna