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

Robin Sommer robin at corelight.com
Thu Jul 25 08:12:17 PDT 2019


Using "3.1.0-X" would also feel semantically a bit confusing I think
as we'd be changing the meaning of a scheme we're already using.

I like the idea of using "dev.X" and "rcX". I was originally feeling
similar about "alpha" but the sorting is a nice property to have.
Swtiching from "beta" to "rc" would address that.

In the end, either scheme works for me.

Robin

On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 20:36 -0700, Jonathan 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 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 ?
> 
> - Jon
> _______________________________________________
> zeek-dev mailing list
> zeek-dev at zeek.org
> http://mailman.icsi.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/zeek-dev




-- 
Robin Sommer * Corelight, Inc. * robin at corelight.com * www.corelight.com


More information about the zeek-dev mailing list