On Fri, 20 Jun 2003, Alan Hoyt wrote:
> kenmcd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> >BUT, the -017 build there is bad (we suspect) ... concurrent investigations
> >are proceeding ... we'll post to the list when the coast is clear again,
> >and the new tarball in the dev directory will certainly contain the
> >configure.in fix.
> >
> Three questions:
>
> Can you start using build numbers in your tarball naming convention
> (i.e. like your rpms)?
Sure, I've done this.
> Can you also release dev snapshots in tarball format?
Hmm ... not sure why this was not done ... Mark? Unless there is some
reason that makes sense, we'll start doing this.
> Can you push out dev snapshot?s more frequently ? you?ve jumped from -14
> to -17 which is now really 2.4?
There are 3 issues here ...
(a) frequency ... that is really driven by urgency/magnitude of changes
we have received/done, and is independent of the numbering scheme
(b) for a variety of reasons, missing build numbers on oss.sgi.com
(-15 and -16 above) do not necessarily mean there has been functional
changes of import that were not available through oss.sgi.com ...
remember oss.sgi.com is but one portal into a complex s/w project
that has the open source releases as only part of the puzzle
(c) 2.3.0-17 was a mistake, after the 2.3.0 real release, the dev series
should have become 2.3.1-x or 2.4.0-x ... since I only have minor stuff
so far, I'm QAing 2.3.1-1 at the moment, and expect that to be on
oss.sgi.com within a few days (we'll mail to the list when this happens).
Thanks for the feedback Alan.
|