From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-02-01 09:44:17
"Victor A. Wagner Jr." <vawjr_at_[hidden]> writes:
> At 10:53 2006-01-31, David Abrahams wrote:
>>"Victor A. Wagner Jr." <vawjr_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> > At 03:01 2006-01-30, David Abrahams wrote:
>> >>"Victor A. Wagner Jr." <vawjr_at_[hidden]> 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
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk