Official releases?

Official releases?

[Josh Boyer]

Howdy,

I'm just curious if anyone is ever really going to do an "official"
release of sparse.  We've got daily snapshots provided by Dave Jones,
and git of course, but will an official release tarball with shiny
version numbers and everything be created?

The only reason I ask is because it makes packaging sparse a bit easier
to some degree.

josh

Re: Official releases?

[Dave Jones]

On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 09:03:45AM -0600, Josh Boyer wrote:
 > Howdy,
 > 
 > I'm just curious if anyone is ever really going to do an "official"
 > release of sparse.  We've got daily snapshots provided by Dave Jones,
 > and git of course, but will an official release tarball with shiny
 > version numbers and everything be created?
 > 
 > The only reason I ask is because it makes packaging sparse a bit easier
 > to some degree.

Well, all you need from a version number is a monotonically increasing
number right?  You could munge the daily snapshot dates into same.
It's not as 'pretty' as a real version number, but it works with
minimal effort on behalf of Linus.

	Dave

-- 
http://www.codemonkey.org.uk

Re: Official releases?

[Josh Boyer]

On Tue, 2006-10-31 at 12:08 -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 09:03:45AM -0600, Josh Boyer wrote:
>  > Howdy,
>  > 
>  > I'm just curious if anyone is ever really going to do an "official"
>  > release of sparse.  We've got daily snapshots provided by Dave Jones,
>  > and git of course, but will an official release tarball with shiny
>  > version numbers and everything be created?
>  > 
>  > The only reason I ask is because it makes packaging sparse a bit easier
>  > to some degree.
> 
> Well, all you need from a version number is a monotonically increasing
> number right?  You could munge the daily snapshot dates into same.

Yes, but you don't keep them all laying around forever.  You keep about
a week's worth right?

So if one were to package say sparse-2006-10-25.tar.gz, it'll disappear
in a week.  Makes it hard to verify those against the upstream tarball
when the tarball no longer exists :).

> It's not as 'pretty' as a real version number, but it works with
> minimal effort on behalf of Linus.

Yeah, I know.  It's not a big deal.  I was just curious if something
like an official release was ever even planned or not.

josh

Re: Official releases?

[Linus Torvalds]

On Tue, 31 Oct 2006, Josh Boyer wrote:
>
> Yes, but you don't keep them all laying around forever.  You keep about
> a week's worth right?

If each tar-ball contains the git version, at least you can get back to 
it..

Anyway, I suspect it would be better if people didn't consider me the 
maintainer for sparse, simply because it does the things I really cared 
about, and as a result I'm not really very active.

How about talking to Josh Triplett, who maintains a tree at

	git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/josh/sparse.git

with gitk at

	http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/josh/sparse.git;a=summary

and see if he wouldn't mind making "real" releases.

		Linus

Re: Official releases?

[Josh Triplett]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1063 bytes --]

Josh Boyer wrote:
> I'm just curious if anyone is ever really going to do an "official"
> release of sparse.  We've got daily snapshots provided by Dave Jones,
> and git of course, but will an official release tarball with shiny
> version numbers and everything be created?

Since sparse doesn't use any autofoolery, and doesn't include a version number
in the source anywhere, making a release should just require running git tag
and git archive, and putting the resulting tarball up in an official location.
As far as version numbering, it seems reasonable to use the former kernel
versioning system: major.oddeven.revision, starting from something like 0.1.0,
and keeping major version 0 until sparse can comfortably provide some
guarantee of backward compatibility for sparse extensions.  Thus, periodic
releases (0.1.1, 0.1.2, ...) wouldn't take much effort at all, and eventually
calling one "stable" (0.2.0, with crash-fixes an similar backported to produce
0.2.1, 0.2.2, ...) would mostly consist of a judgement call.

- Josh Triplett


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 252 bytes --]

Re: Official releases?

[Josh Boyer]

On Tue, 2006-10-31 at 12:36 -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
> Josh Boyer wrote:
> > I'm just curious if anyone is ever really going to do an "official"
> > release of sparse.  We've got daily snapshots provided by Dave Jones,
> > and git of course, but will an official release tarball with shiny
> > version numbers and everything be created?
> 
> Since sparse doesn't use any autofoolery, and doesn't include a version number
> in the source anywhere, making a release should just require running git tag
> and git archive, and putting the resulting tarball up in an official location.
> As far as version numbering, it seems reasonable to use the former kernel
> versioning system: major.oddeven.revision, starting from something like 0.1.0,
> and keeping major version 0 until sparse can comfortably provide some
> guarantee of backward compatibility for sparse extensions.  Thus, periodic
> releases (0.1.1, 0.1.2, ...) wouldn't take much effort at all, and eventually
> calling one "stable" (0.2.0, with crash-fixes an similar backported to produce
> 0.2.1, 0.2.2, ...) would mostly consist of a judgement call.

Great.  Did you see Linus' email suggesting that I ask you to do
this? :)

josh

Re: Official releases?

[Josh Triplett]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1319 bytes --]

Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-10-31 at 12:36 -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
>> Josh Boyer wrote:
>>> I'm just curious if anyone is ever really going to do an "official"
>>> release of sparse.  We've got daily snapshots provided by Dave Jones,
>>> and git of course, but will an official release tarball with shiny
>>> version numbers and everything be created?
>> Since sparse doesn't use any autofoolery, and doesn't include a version number
>> in the source anywhere, making a release should just require running git tag
>> and git archive, and putting the resulting tarball up in an official location.
>> As far as version numbering, it seems reasonable to use the former kernel
>> versioning system: major.oddeven.revision, starting from something like 0.1.0,
>> and keeping major version 0 until sparse can comfortably provide some
>> guarantee of backward compatibility for sparse extensions.  Thus, periodic
>> releases (0.1.1, 0.1.2, ...) wouldn't take much effort at all, and eventually
>> calling one "stable" (0.2.0, with crash-fixes an similar backported to produce
>> 0.2.1, 0.2.2, ...) would mostly consist of a judgement call.
> 
> Great.  Did you see Linus' email suggesting that I ask you to do
> this? :)

I did, and I plan to roll a release this weekend.

- Josh Triplett



[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 252 bytes --]

Re: Official releases?

[Josh Boyer]

On Fri, 2006-11-03 at 21:16 -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
> Josh Boyer wrote:
> > On Tue, 2006-10-31 at 12:36 -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
> >> Josh Boyer wrote:
> >>> I'm just curious if anyone is ever really going to do an "official"
> >>> release of sparse.  We've got daily snapshots provided by Dave Jones,
> >>> and git of course, but will an official release tarball with shiny
> >>> version numbers and everything be created?
> >> Since sparse doesn't use any autofoolery, and doesn't include a version number
> >> in the source anywhere, making a release should just require running git tag
> >> and git archive, and putting the resulting tarball up in an official location.
> >> As far as version numbering, it seems reasonable to use the former kernel
> >> versioning system: major.oddeven.revision, starting from something like 0.1.0,
> >> and keeping major version 0 until sparse can comfortably provide some
> >> guarantee of backward compatibility for sparse extensions.  Thus, periodic
> >> releases (0.1.1, 0.1.2, ...) wouldn't take much effort at all, and eventually
> >> calling one "stable" (0.2.0, with crash-fixes an similar backported to produce
> >> 0.2.1, 0.2.2, ...) would mostly consist of a judgement call.
> > 
> > Great.  Did you see Linus' email suggesting that I ask you to do
> > this? :)
> 
> I did, and I plan to roll a release this weekend.

Excellent.  Thanks much!

josh