Version numbering (was Re: new alpha beta support broke CI)

[Tim Penhey]

On 27/05/14 16:09, Curtis Hovey-Canonical wrote:
> The alpha beta support affects packaging.and tools naming. This chagne
> should have been discussed with Juju QA before landing. CI cannot make
> a package or extract tools.
>     http://juju-ci.vapour.ws:8080/job/publish-revision/415/console
> 
> We can fix this tomorrow. In the mean time:
> What is the format for the deb version?
>     alpha, alpha1 alpha-1, alpha10?
> What is the format for the juju tool's name?
>     juju-1.20-alpha1-trusty-arm64.tgz

Hi Curtis,

Sorry about that.  I just assumed that the package naming would just use
the version string from the executable.

Is there anything else you need from me/us?

I also realized after that merge landed that there was another place in
the code where the version number wasn't updated, the windows installer
file.  Is that the only other place?

One thing that we haven't been clear about is what the tags should be.
The version code doesn't care, and just sorts the tags lexically.

We could go:
  1.20-alpha1
  1.20-alpha2
  1.20-alpha3
  1.20-beta1
  1.20-beta2
  1.20.0

Although I think I have a personal preference for
  1.20-dev1
  1.20-dev2
  1.20-dev3
  1.20-rc1
  1.20-rc2
  1.20.0

Thoughts or comments?

Tim