Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 19:52:51 +1000 From: Jim Mock <jim@blues.ghis.net> To: Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami <asami@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: obrien@FreeBSD.ORG, ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: xchat & xchat-devel? Message-ID: <19990712195251.A65202@blues.ghis.net> In-Reply-To: <199907120927.CAA68497@silvia.hip.berkeley.edu> References: <19990712132238.A36959@blues.ghis.net> <19990712010458.B57377@dragon.nuxi.com> <19990712181355.B55317@blues.ghis.net> <199907120822.BAA68238@silvia.hip.berkeley.edu> <19990712183933.A64188@blues.ghis.net> <199907120927.CAA68497@silvia.hip.berkeley.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 12 Jul 1999 at 02:27:42 -0700, Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami wrote: > * From: Jim Mock <jim@blues.ghis.net> > > * I don't know that we'd want to give it a version number.. right > * now, the development branch's current version is 1.1.2 and is > * changing alot (which is why I suggested xchat-devel). The stable > * version is 1.0.0. > > That's ok, but what I'm thinking is, what do we do when it becomes > stable? We can't repository copy it back to "xchat", since it > already exists. The way it works for most ports is I'd send diffs to upgrade the existing stable version to the latest stable (when it's available), that way I can continue to keep the development version up to date as well. > (1) foo version X is committed as "foo" > (2) foo version Y comes out, repository copy from foo -> fooY > (3) foo version Y becomes stable, "foo" is cvs removed leaving only fooY > (4) foo version Z comes out, repository copy from fooY -> fooZ > (5) foo version Z becomes stable, "fooY" is cvs removed leaving only fooZ > > and so on. That way we'll always have a complete history somewhere. Makes sense. Wouldn't we also have a complete history if each was treated separately though? I.e., the 'xchat' port gets updated when a new stable release comes out, and 'xchat-devel' (or whatever) is imported as a new port and updated to keep with their current development. Then again, doing it like that, we wouldn't have a history of xchat -> xchat-devel (if I get what you're saying). > * I don't know that it'll replace the current xchat port.. I mean, > * when it gets to 1.1.10, 1.2.0 will probably become the stable > * version, and 1.3.x the development tree (if they use their > * current version numbering). Am I making sense with any of this? > > Are they using odd/even numbers to denote development/stable? Are > both versions updated in parallel or does only the development > version move? It appears that's how they're doing it. It just hit 1.0.0 about a week or two ago, so I'm not exactly sure how they plan on doing the version numbering. This is from the web site.. make of it what you will.. Released X-Chat 1.0.0. The ChangeLog is available here. Only a few minor changes from 0.9.10. X-Chat will now branch off to a development 1.1.x series, some real nice features are planned. I know that's not saying anything much different than I already stated. From that, I'm guessing 1.2.0 will be the next stable version. Only the development branch is moving right now. -- - Jim Mock - jim@blues.ghis.net - systems administrator - ghis.NET - - work: http://www.ghis.net/ - personal: http://www.ghis.net/~jim/ - - FreeBSD 'zine: http://www.freebsdzine.org/ - jim@freebsdzine.org - - FreeBSD: http://advocacy.freebsd.org/ - jim@advocacy.FreeBSD.org - To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19990712195251.A65202>