[racket-dev] Release for v6.0 has begun

From: Ryan Culpepper (ryanc at ccs.neu.edu)
Date: Mon Nov 25 11:37:37 EST 2013

On 11/25/2013 10:28 AM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> At Mon, 25 Nov 2013 09:56:45 -0500, Ryan Culpepper wrote:
>> On 11/25/2013 09:44 AM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
>>> Here's the full comment:
>>>      The version string has one of the forms:
>>>         X.Y
>>>         X.Y.Z     Z != 0
>>>         X.Y.Z.W   W != 0
>>>      where each X, Y, Z, W is a non-negative exact integer, Y must not
>>>      exceed 99, and Z or W must not exceed 999.  Y>=90 means that this is
>>>      working towards {X+1}.0, and X.Y (Z=0, W=0) is an alpha version for
>>>      {X+1}.0; Z>=900 means working towards X.{Y+1}, and X.Y.Z as an
>>>      alpha release.
>>> Then intent is that when Z and W are 0, the string form of the version
>>> number is just X.Y, not X.Y.Z.W.
>>> How about this clarification?
>>>            ... and X.Y (i.e., Z=0 and W=0, so Z and W are
>>>      omitted from the string form) ...
>> That's not the part that needs clarifying. I think that fact that the
>> string form drops final zeros is clear from lines 2-4.
>> The part that needs clarifying is how to choose the version number for
>> the alpha releases leading up to version {X+1}.0. (Really, how to choose
>> alpha version numbers in general, since I've had similar problems in the
>> past.) From this statement, "X.Y (Z=0, W=0) is an alpha version for
>> {X+1}.0" (Y>=90 already stated), I would expect that 5.91 would be a
>> fine alpha version number for 6.0. Is it? If not, what should the alpha
>> version number be?
> I agree that "5.91" is the right alpha-version string, assuming that
> it's intended as an "alpha" in the sense of our release rules (as
> opposed to a "release candidate", which has a non-zero W).
> The problem with the release branch currently is that "" is
> not a valid version string, and so
>   #define MZSCHEME_VERSION ""
> creates trouble, right?

OH! I didn't realize that was the problem, because I knew not to do 
that, but apparently I did it anyway. Sorry about that. I just pushed a fix.


Posted on the dev mailing list.