Proposal: changes to version.IsDev

[Gustavo Niemeyer]

On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 9:56 PM, David Cheney
<david.cheney at canonical.com> wrote:
> I agree. We (well, I) have not been following the mantra that odd _patch_
> numbers are dev versions and in fact rely on the ability to burn a patch
> number if I screw up the release.

It doesn't really matter in this case, because you've been using an
odd minor version number all the time, which flags it as dev.

I don't personally have any strong opinions either way. As long as the
whole team understands and follows the contraints of backwards
compatibility, we'll be in good grounds.

> I'd even go futher and make
>
> IsDev() boot { return isOdd(v.Minor) }
>
> I don't know what the v.Build restriction is, we don't produce tools with a
> x.y.z.B version string so this hasn't been battle tested either.

See the implementation of upgrade-juju --bump-version. If IsDev is
changed as you suggest, please drop Build and --bump-version too, as
otherwise made-up release numbers will conflict with real versions.


gustavo @ http://niemeyer.net