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

So, IIUC, Ryan should have used

  5.91.0.1

as the version number on the release branch?

Robby



On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 2:38 PM, Eli Barzilay <eli at barzilay.org> wrote:

> Yesterday, 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).
>
> These two things were originally independent: the ability to specify
> alpha-ness (the second .91) and release-ness (W=0), and that was used
> by the old build script to make some decisions for what the installers
> do.  Assuming that this still matters, there is a problem with using
> "5.91" for the release process -- and instead it should be "5.91.0.1"
> to make it treated as a nightly build.  For example, on Windows the
> installer for a "5.91.0.1" wouldn't grab the suffix registration, but
> "5.91" would which makes it bad as something that you ask people to
> try.
>
> BTW, this is not the same meaning of "alpha" that is used in the
> release checklist -- that one has the meaning of a "release
> candidate".
>
> --
>           ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x)))          Eli Barzilay:
>                     http://barzilay.org/                   Maze is Life!
> _________________________
>   Racket Developers list:
>   http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev/archive/attachments/20131126/3192df64/attachment.html>