[Vtigercrm-developers] Naming conventions

[Jeff Kowalczyk]

Fathi Boudra wrote :
> > I have added the most recent proposed version naming scheme table I
> > posted to the forums in 2005, as a starting point.
>
> thanks for the example. Some changes in previous naming scheme are not
> useful:

> > * Z: packaging errors corrected
> 
> i'm not sure that we need Z, packaging system use their own independent
> revision number. A bug in linux packaging doesn't necessarily affects
> windows packaging.

By .Z I mean packaging errors in our tarballs and zip files, not linux
distro packaging, which as you correctly cited, use their own suffixes.

On Gentoo linux, for example, when an ebuild is revised, but the
software's tarball is unchanged, you append -r1 to the ebuild name. e.g.
vtigercrm-5.0.0_rc1-r1.ebuild is the second revision of packaging for what
we call vtigercrm-5.0.0rc1

For example, we have dozens of files in trunk marked executable. Likewise
with files which do not yet have svn-eol:native.

If problems like that slip through to a release such as vtigercrm-5.0.0,
we would fix it with a vtigercrm-5.0.0.1.

* In almost every case we would not need a .Z release and thus omit it.

* Whether we omit .Y when zero is a matter of taste. I'd prefer to use it,
but we should be consistent once decided.