[torquedev] Re: what happened to 2.4.0?

Josh Butikofer josh at clusterresources.com
Mon Mar 30 12:07:39 MDT 2009


It looks like we have differing ideas on how to version TORQUE as well. :) We 
should also discuss these and come up with some rules.

We moved TORQUE 2.4.0b1 to 2.4.1b1 because we needed to delineate that another 
version of the beta release was made. I don't know why we didn't make it b2 
instead of 2.4.1. To me, however, this seems like a pretty minor issue, 
especially since TORQUE 2.4 has not been released and is still under heavy 
development. It wouldn't be horrible if the first release was 2.4.2 or even 
2.4.3, would it? Many software projects work this way.

Glen Beane wrote:
> If CRI is going to have people running 2.4.x on production systems, we
> probably should release a real 2.4.0 official release, other than the
> 2.4.0b1 in the download folder.  Then we we should make a 2.4-fixes
> branch in subversion to continue 2.4.x development and start working
> on 2.5.0 in trunk.

We haven't made a 2.4.x production release, yet, so we don't need to make an 
official release. We also don't feel it's ready for that.

In my opinion, we should get rid of the "trunk" and just have branches that 
denote which version of TORQUE they are meant for. That way there isn't 
confusion about what "trunk" means at any given time.

> The release process is completely messed up for 2.4 now.

Since we haven't released TORQUE 2.4.x yet, I don't think our situation is so dire.

I also suggest that we move TORQUE 2.4.x out of the main download area and put 
it in a "beta" location, so that users don't get confused. I think this would 
make us feel good about leaving off the "b1" as Garrick suggests. But in doing 
this, we will need to have a version number that we can increase when we want to 
make it clear that a new "beta/release candidate version" is available.

Anyway, let us know your thoughts.


Josh Butikofer

More information about the torquedev mailing list