"Victor A. Wagner Jr." <vawjr@rudbek.com> writes:
At 10:53 2006-01-31, David Abrahams wrote:
"Victor A. Wagner Jr." <vawjr@rudbek.com> writes:
At 03:01 2006-01-30, David Abrahams wrote:
"Victor A. Wagner Jr." <vawjr@rudbek.com> writes:
I keep asking, if you only release what's on HEAD, how do you do point releases?
what's the "meaning" of a "point" release anyhow?
The "meaning" is a release that's exactly like some other release except for the addition of bug fixes.
release numbers (names) are a marketing concept (so the collateral material can be produced). They've _never_ had any relevance to software (other than some loose conventions which caused more problems than they were worth)
Yes, numbering is irrelevant. I didn't mention numbering. Please address the question with that in mind.
and exactly what does "point" refer to if NOT the separator between numbers? for example 1.33.1
I'm not talking about notation, and I think that should be abundantly clear at this point. I'm going to keep calling it a point release because that is the commonly accepted name for a a release that's exactly like some other release except for the addition of bug fixes. Please try to ignore the offensive implication in the terminology so I don't have to write a long sentence where only two words would do. But to humor you, let me rephrase the question: How do you make a release that's exactly like some other release except for the addition of bug fixes, when other non-bug-fix material has been checked into the HEAD?
We can easily automate what branch people are testing.
we haven't thusfar
It's a lot easier than solving the point release problem. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com