Re: [Tails-dev] Release versioning

On 06/03/2015 01:51 PM, intrigeri wrote:
> Hi,
>
> anonym wrote (03 Jun 2015 11:22:31 GMT) :
>> On 06/03/2015 12:26 PM, intrigeri wrote:
>>> Note that strictly speaking, we don't need the "Tails_" prefix. Also,
>>> I would find it nice to clearly distinguish the "target versions" that
>>> will be 100% reached on a flag day, and by releasing a given Tails
>>> only (e.g. Tails/Jessie), from the ones that are more general
>>> milestones. So, that could become:
>>>
>>> * 2.0 => Milestone_Sustainability
>>> * 3.0 => Milestone_Hardening
>>> * 4.0 => Tails_Jessie
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>
>> This makes sense but "Milestone_" feels like a redundant prefix in a
>> field called "Milestone".
>
> Well, the field is called "Target version".
>
>> Do we really need a prefix at all?
>
> Maybe not, but I like the fact that "milestone" expresses something
> that's specific and measurable. I'm afraid that if we drop it, then
> these target version names will look like generic categories to which
> we can add anything that fits into what their name expresses.

Hah! I believe I was just confused because we constantly refer to them
as milestones. So, yeah, I agree with you.

>> Also, for the "general" milestones, I guess they be recurring ones. E.g.
>> the one that's currently called 3.0 is perhaps only an initial push for
>> such related things, but maybe there will be another one. Reusing
>> milestones seems like a bad idea, so perhaps they too can be versioned,
>> e.g.:
>
>> * 2.0 => Sustainability_1.0
>> * 3.0 => Hardening_1.0
>
> Totally makes sense, and even better, it addresses the concern
> I expressed above.
>
> But I'm worried that using such version numbers, especially
> two-components ones in the same range as Tails releases', will be
> confusing,

Yeah, makes sense.

> so my current proposal would be:
>
> * 2.0 => Sustainability_M1
> * 3.0 => Hardening_M1
>
> ("M" means "milestone", I think I've seen that used elsewhere in
> similar contexts)

Sounds great!

Cheers!