Proposal: changes to version.IsDev

[Tim Penhey]

On 22/03/13 14:04, Gustavo Niemeyer wrote:
> 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.

Hi Gustavo,

Can you please explain the reason we have a --bump-version?  What is it
trying to convey?

I have a feeling that this will overlap with my soon to come email
around tools :-)

Cheers,
Tim