|[eclipse-dev] consistent CVS tags for builds?|
The component teams seem to have different conventions for CVS tag names when doing build submissions. I believe that consistency is a good thing unless there are good reasons for tag name creativity (are there any?). In the past, we even had to re-spin builds because inconsistent tag names lead to non-increasing bundle version numbers. (To be fair, this only happened if one component in itself was inconsistent though.) CVS tag names appear in bundle version numbers, in the bundle jar file name or directory name, and in the revision history for one specific file. They should increase lexicographically over time as long as the major, minor, and service segment of the bundle version number does not change, i.e. within one development stream. I would like to be able to derive the id of the build in which it first appeared when looking at a revision of a file in the history view, or when looking at a particular bundle somewhere on disk. Kim Horne has volunteered to update the releng tools if we could agree on the following form for tags (sorry for being formal here): "v<date>-<time><branch_opt>" where date := the current date in yyyyMMdd format time := the current time in HHmm format branch_opt := "" if org.eclipse.releng is from HEAD, "_<branch>" otherwise. branch := a compressed form of the branch from which org.eclipse.releng is checked out. The "compressed form" could be the first letter of the branch name followed by any numbers in the branch name. The reason for compressing the branch name is that tag names appear in file names and directory names, and using the full branch name would lead to overly long names that could cause problems on certain file systems. For example, a regular contribution for this week's integration build would use a tag like "v20080414-1526", and a build submission for a maintenance build would use a tag like "v20080901-1130_R34". Looking at the first example tag, we can tell that it was made from HEAD for a regular integration build some time after April 14, 2008. The second tag looks like it would go into a maintenance build for the 3.4 maintenance stream. Questions? Comments? Boris P.S. I know that this has been discussed in the past. I don't have much hope that we can get everyone to agree on this, but I would consider it an improvement if *most* teams would use a consistent naming scheme.
Back to the top