proposed numbering and release changes

From: Duane Wessels <>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 17:07:52 -0600

Hi Folks, any input/opinions on the following would be appreciated.

I want to make a change to the way we release and name squid versions.
This will coincide with a change to the way we use CVS. I have
two goals:

        * make it easier to generate patches for released versions

        * to make released versions more stable by having a short
          "prerelease" or beta-test period before a stable release.

The second point maybe doesn't make sense, so let me give an example.

If version A.B.10 is relatively stable, then I don't have to fix
many bugs. Instead I apply new patches and add new features. These
new features are released in version .11, which is probably unstable.
After a week or so, the .11 bugs have been found and .12 is released.

So, in this example, even-numbered releases tend to be stable and
odd-numbered releases are unstable and come out about one week after
an even-numbered one.

I would rather call the odd-numbered releases "beta" or "prerelease"
So the versioning might go something like:

        1.2.0.PRE # prerelease
        1.2.0.REL # "stable"
        1.2.0.P1 # first patches, if any
        1.2.0.P2 # second patches, ...

Now, given a scheme like that, the numbering gets pretty long. So I
also thought about maybe dropping the third number and incrementing
the second number more often. So it would be


In terms of CVS, I have probably historically been using it wrong. In
the future I would create branch versions at the 'PRE' distributions.
The only changes made to branch versions would be bug fixes, and of
course they would be merged with the main tree before the next 'PRE'
release. This change has probably little effect on most people because
I'm a stingy bastard and don't want to make the CVS tree public.
Comments appreciated anyway.

Duane W.
Received on Tue Jul 29 2003 - 13:15:54 MDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Tue Dec 09 2003 - 16:11:55 MST