Changing the branch version numbers.

We need to take a look at the current version numbers in the SVN repository.
This is the current situation:

Stable:
orocos-branches/branch-1.0 : 1.0.3
orocos-trunk : 1.1.0

Development:
trunk/rtt : 1.2.0

I'd like to change this to:

Stable:
orocos-branches/branch-1.0 : 1.0.3
orocos-trunk : 1.0.90

Development:
trunk/rtt : 1.1.0

The rationale is this:
Development releases have uneven numbers. But on orocos-trunk, no development
is going on besides bug fixing of the 1.0 release, yet it has an 'unstable'
version number. In the meantime, people are developing on the trunk/rtt
development branch which wrongfully has a 'stable' version number of a
version that is not yet released. Hence when dependent libraries
(OCL, KDL,...) check for a version number, they need to check for rtt >= 1.2.0
to detect the development branch. That's awkward since it has not yet been
released.

Tagging trunk/rtt with version 1.1.0 also allows to release development
snapshots.

Any objections ?

Peter

Changing the branch version numbers.

On Fri, 23 Feb 2007, Peter Soetens wrote:
> We need to take a look at the current version numbers in the SVN repository.
> This is the current situation:
>
> Stable:
> orocos-branches/branch-1.0 : 1.0.3
> orocos-trunk : 1.1.0
>
> Development:
> trunk/rtt : 1.2.0
>
> I'd like to change this to:
>
> Stable:
> orocos-branches/branch-1.0 : 1.0.3
> orocos-trunk : 1.0.90
>
> Development:
> trunk/rtt : 1.1.0
>
> The rationale is this:
> Development releases have uneven numbers. But on orocos-trunk, no development
> is going on besides bug fixing of the 1.0 release, yet it has an 'unstable'
> version number. In the meantime, people are developing on the trunk/rtt
> development branch which wrongfully has a 'stable' version number of a
> version that is not yet released. Hence when dependent libraries
> (OCL, KDL,...) check for a version number, they need to check for rtt >= 1.2.0
> to detect the development branch. That's awkward since it has not yet been
> released.
>
> Tagging trunk/rtt with version 1.1.0 also allows to release development
> snapshots.
>
> Any objections ?

I don't understand why you would apply the 1.0 version number on (orocos-)trunk? For
me trunk is where "main development" goes on. And if there's a need
for tagging a specific revision, you could use trunk-date as tagname.
So, ATM, I would say that trunk is "just trunk", and we have 2
branches, a 1.0.x branch and a cmake-branch (*).

Then, at a certain point in time, I guess that trunk/rtt (the above
"cmake branch" (or 1.1 branch) will probably _become_ trunk (**), and
the 1.2 branch will be split of from that path. The current
(orocos-)trunk will then be a dead branch.

regards,

Klaas

(*) Which has been split from trunk off before the 1.0 branch IIRC,
and maybe that's a (good?) reason not to call this 1.1 branch?
(**) As its name suggests

_______________________________________________
Orocos-Dev mailing list
Orocos-Dev [..] ...
http://lists.mech.kuleuven.be/mailman/listinfo/orocos-dev

Changing the branch version numbers.

Quoting Klaas Gadeyne < klaas [dot] gadeyne [..] ... >:
> On Fri, 23 Feb 2007, Peter Soetens wrote:
>> Any objections ?
>
> I don't understand why you would apply the 1.0 version number on
> (orocos-)trunk? For
> me trunk is where "main development" goes on. And if there's a need
> for tagging a specific revision, you could use trunk-date as tagname.
> So, ATM, I would say that trunk is "just trunk", and we have 2
> branches, a 1.0.x branch and a cmake-branch (*).

The reality is that on orocos-trunk, _no_ development is going on, as I
pointed out. It is as stable as (and identical to) branch-1.0. The
'cmake' branch has already more features than the 1.0 branch, and
calling it the 'cmake' branch is a bit defamatory, as it is more than
'cmake' alone. _IF_ an 1.2.0 release is made, it will be made from this
branch. Hence, it deserves to be called 1.1.0 now.

>
> Then, at a certain point in time, I guess that trunk/rtt (the above
> "cmake branch" (or 1.1 branch) will probably _become_ trunk (**), and
> the 1.2 branch will be split of from that path. The current
> (orocos-)trunk will then be a dead branch.

And I propose to do this right now, except that bugfixes are still done
on orocos-trunk (and hence on branch-1.0).

Peter

----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.

_______________________________________________
Orocos-Dev mailing list
Orocos-Dev [..] ...
http://lists.mech.kuleuven.be/mailman/listinfo/orocos-dev

Changing the branch version numbers.

On 2/23/07, Peter Soetens

<peter [dot] soetens [..] ...> wrote:
> Quoting Klaas Gadeyne <klaas [dot] gadeyne [..] ...>:
> > On Fri, 23 Feb 2007, Peter Soetens wrote:
> > > Any objections ?
> >
> > I don't understand why you would apply the 1.0 version number on
> > (orocos-)trunk? For
> > me trunk is where "main development" goes on. And if there's a need
> > for tagging a specific revision, you could use trunk-date as tagname.
> > So, ATM, I would say that trunk is "just trunk", and we have 2
> > branches, a 1.0.x branch and a cmake-branch (*).
>
> The reality is that on orocos-trunk, _no_ development is going on, as I
> pointed out. It is as stable as (and identical to) branch-1.0. The
> 'cmake' branch has already more features than the 1.0 branch, and
> calling it the 'cmake' branch is a bit defamatory, as it is more than
> 'cmake' alone. _IF_ an 1.2.0 release is made, it will be made from this
> branch. Hence, it deserves to be called 1.1.0 now.

OK

> > Then, at a certain point in time, I guess that trunk/rtt (the above
> > "cmake branch" (or 1.1 branch) will probably _become_ trunk (**), and
> > the 1.2 branch will be split of from that path. The current
> > (orocos-)trunk will then be a dead branch.
>
> And I propose to do this right now, except that bugfixes are still done
> on orocos-trunk (and hence on branch-1.0).

No objections at all. However, I think it should be clearly
documented for users/developers where they can find trunk, what
specific branches there are and where they can be found (e.g. on the
website + top level README in the repository?).

Because if we are doing this:
- trunk/rtt is the actual trunk
- orocos-trunk is only for internal use (bugfixes), but
- orocos-branches still contains branches
- orocos-tags contains tags
This is rather unintuitive.

Maybe we should then for clarity also svn mv /orocos-branches to
/branches and maintain a similar structure as in trunk, ie.
branches/rtt/1.0.x etc?
And the same for the tags directory.

Changing the branch version numbers.

[...]
> I don't understand why you would apply the 1.0 version number on
> (orocos-)trunk? For
> me trunk is where "main development" goes on. And if there's a need
> for tagging a specific revision, you could use trunk-date as tagname.
> So, ATM, I would say that trunk is "just trunk", and we have 2
> branches, a 1.0.x branch and a cmake-branch (*).
>
> Then, at a certain point in time, I guess that trunk/rtt (the above
> "cmake branch" (or 1.1 branch) will probably _become_ trunk (**), and
> the 1.2 branch will be split of from that path. The current
> (orocos-)trunk will then be a dead branch.

I hope orocos-dev readers can still see the forest between all my
trunks and branches :-)

klaas

_______________________________________________
Orocos-Dev mailing list
Orocos-Dev [..] ...
http://lists.mech.kuleuven.be/mailman/listinfo/orocos-dev

Ruben Smits's picture

Re:Changing the branch version numbers.

I think it is a good idea, especially for releasing some snapshots of the trunk/rtt branch.

Ruben