Date: Mon, 10 Jul 1995 07:58:28 +0800 (WST) From: Peter Wemm <peter@haywire.DIALix.COM> To: "Rodney W. Grimes" <rgrimes@gndrsh.aac.dev.com> Cc: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@freefall.cdrom.com>, roberto@blaise.ibp.fr, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Version numbers of the different branches? Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.91.950710074134.8698B-100000@haywire.DIALix.COM> In-Reply-To: <199507091815.LAA09446@gndrsh.aac.dev.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 9 Jul 1995, Rodney W. Grimes wrote:
> > > > How about making it either "2.2-BUILT-xxxxxx" or "2.X-BUILT-xxxxx" or
> > > > even "2.X-CURRENT-xxxxxx".
> > > >
> > >
> > > We should revert to something like it was before e.g. 2.2-Development.
> > > Putting the build date is not really informative because it gives
> > > no insight about the date of the files themselves...
> > >
> >
> > You can tell that the files are older than a particular date, that
> > is very useful.
> >
> > ("BUILT-950703" ? Hey, He hasn't got the "ls -s panic" patch that
> > got comitted on july 5th !)
>
> That may be true, but you surely can not say that he has all patches
> applied up to 950703 by that string, as he may have built it from
> 950301 sources...
>
> Any way I would like to have this small bit of confusing mess cleaned
> up and propose the following changes based on my understanding of
> why things are the way they are. The release folks wanted the SNAP
> shots to go out with a reasonable date in the snap shot that was
> done automagically is my understanding of the sole reason this was
> _really_ ever added.
>
> I propose that the release Makefile be modified to _require_ either
> a RELEASE=value or SNAP=value that is used in constructing a string
> of the form ``X.Y-RELEASE-`date`'' or ``X.Y-SNAP-`date`''.
>
> Without the pass in override the string should be ``X.Y-DEVELOPEMENT'',
> no date as the date of the build here is pretty darn meaningless.
> Ie, this applies when building from /usr/src/Makefile and not /usr/src-
> /release/Makefile.
>
> The value X.Y will be set to 2.0.6, 2.1, and 2.2 in the respective
> branches of the CVS tree (too late to set a 2.0.5 one :-().
>
> Comments?
I'd certainly vote for something like that!
How about, as part of the sup scanning routines, the routine stamps in
the X.Y-DEVELOPMENT-yymmdd entrys into the freefall's
/usr/src/sys/conf/newvers.sh right before the supscan?
Another different option might be to get the cron job to touch newvers.sh
immediately before the supscan, and get newvers.sh to read the timestamp
on itself while running..
IMHO, the date of the source release is useful, but the build date is
potentially quite misleading.
Oh, and dont forget, there's X.Y-ALPHA, -BETA and friends.. :-)
Cheers,
-Peter
> --
> Rod Grimes rgrimes@gndrsh.aac.dev.com
> Accurate Automation Company Reliable computers for FreeBSD
>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.SV4.3.91.950710074134.8698B-100000>