[torquedev] Re: what happened to 2.4.0?

Glen Beane glen.beane at gmail.com
Mon Mar 30 13:08:15 MDT 2009

I think 2.4.0 is the "target release".  When the 2.4 is officially
released, I think it should be 2.4.0.  Although Garrick may disagree,
I think it is fine to have version numbers like 2.4.0b1 for a beta
release. An official release should be versioned as
major.minor.bug_fix, all integers.

Here at my day job if our target release was 2.4.0, then we would
release product-2.4.0_build1 to SQA for testing. If they find bugs, we
would fix them and release (and tag in svn) product-2.4.0_build2.
Once we have created a "build" that has produced no bugs during
testing we tag the target release.  So if product-2.4.0_build5 tests
OK, it would have its version number changed and get tagged as 2.4.0
(the tags product-2.4.0_build5 and product-2.4.0 are the same, except
for the version number which may appear both internally in the source
and in the tag name).

On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 2:07 PM, Josh Butikofer
<josh at clusterresources.com> wrote:
> Glen,
> 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.
> Thanks,
> Josh Butikofer

More information about the torquedev mailing list