23 Sep
2011
23 Sep
'11
1:02 p.m.
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 18:04, Sergiu Dumitriu <sergiu(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
So we agree on C) with four +1, no 0, no -1
On 09/16/2011 10:04 AM, Denis Gervalle wrote:
Well, not really, it only follow a single branch of commits, while SVN
revision are global to a repository
Hi Devs,
Last database migrator is very old now, it was on revision 15428 of our
SVN
repository.
The rules at that time was to use the revision number of the SVN commit
for
the database version.
So our database is currently in version 15428.
Since we have no more revision number in Git, and that the database
version
should be an integer, we need to vote a new
convention:
A) continue from where we are, incrementing by one, so next version
will be
15428
B) use 16000, or another round number for next revision and increments
by
one for next version
C) use a mix with the current XWiki version, so next will be 32000, and
we
have room for 1000 versions during the 3.2
releases.
D) Count the number of git commits on the trunk, with:
git log --oneline | wc -l
This would give a number equivalent to the SVN revision number.
Personally,
since database changes are really rare, since we were already
jumping, and since there is plenty of room for number, I prefer meaning
full number and I prefer C. The major advantage is that the number is in
the
database, so if you have a db dump, you may
quickly know what is the
oldest
version this dump is compatible with without
needing some reference list.
So my +1 for C.
I prefer to use something more stable, and C) looks like the better
option for me as well.
--
Sergiu Dumitriu
http://purl.org/net/sergiu/
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
--
Denis Gervalle
SOFTEC sa - CEO
eGuilde sarl - CTO