Release?

[Julik Tarkhanov]

On Feb 12, 2009, at 5:40 PM, Magnus Holm wrote:

> However, let's focus on the future! First of all, we need some plan  
> on how we should name the releases.
Basic. http://www.rubygems.org/read/chapter/7

Knowing how much changed on 2.0 I expect that some things are very  
different and analogous to API change, so 2.0 be it. 1.5.180 is just  
"tiny" 180
and a bugfix release, besides people who installed it from _why's  
server will not get screwed when it pops up on their server and they  
set it up as a dep.

> What about keeping the rev-number in the version number and make it  
> some sort of "patchlevel"?
What worked well for me is upping the "tiny" revision every time I say  
"this is a tagged release, and it goes out to rubyforge". Putting int  
SHAs in
there doesn't really scale because less has to still mean "older" and  
more has to mean "younger".

> So 2.0 becomes 2.0.308, and any bugfixes which doesn't change the  
> "external" API can we release as 2.0.xxx. Should make it simpler to  
> release plain bugfixes without bumping the version number too high.  
> 2.1 would then contain some more new stuff. Should also blend nicely  
> into pre-releases since they can keep the same structure.

Why not just 2.0.0 with a tag, then 2.0.1 with a tag and so on? Then  
you also know everytime you release something you have a tag for it.  
And things like rebases will not ruin your schemes

-- 
Julik Tarkhanov
me at julik.nl