Closed
Bug 1301510
Opened 9 years ago
Closed 9 years ago
Release JSS 4.3.3
Categories
(JSS Graveyard :: Library, defect)
Tracking
(Not tracked)
RESOLVED
WONTFIX
People
(Reporter: elio.maldonado.batiz, Assigned: elio.maldonado.batiz)
Details
Attachments
(1 file, 2 obsolete files)
6.15 KB,
patch
|
u289492
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
This bug proposes the release of JSS 4.3.3
Assignee | ||
Comment 1•9 years ago
|
||
Update JSS_PATCH_VERSION to 3 for the JSS-4.3.3 release.
Assignee: glenbeasley → emaldona
Attachment #8789563 -
Flags: review?(msg4cfu)
Assignee | ||
Comment 2•9 years ago
|
||
Since we may not have the automated JSS tests enabled until next week, would it be better to do a tag to JSS_4_3_3_RC0 instead?
Flags: needinfo?(kaie)
Assignee | ||
Comment 3•9 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Elio Maldonado from comment #2)
> Since we may not have the automated JSS tests enabled until next week, would
> it be better to do a tag to JSS_4_3_3_RC0 instead?
Answer to my own question. After a bit of research I learned the proper way to update version numbers for JSS which is similar to what is done in NSS. We can indeed do a tag for JSS 4.3.3 beta candidate just as is done with NSS and after discussing with Christina it's the proper thing to do. The patch I submitted is incomplete revised patch coming next.
Flags: needinfo?(kaie)
Assignee | ||
Comment 4•9 years ago
|
||
Includes additional files that were missed in the previous version.
Attachment #8789563 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #8789563 -
Flags: review?(msg4cfu)
Attachment #8789879 -
Flags: review?(msg4cfu)
Assignee | ||
Comment 5•9 years ago
|
||
The version I intended to attach
Attachment #8789879 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #8789879 -
Flags: review?(msg4cfu)
Attachment #8789882 -
Flags: review?(msg4cfu)
Comment on attachment 8789882 [details] [diff] [review]
JSS_PATCH_VERSION to 3 - V2
I think it looks fine. I do not have experience with upstream versioning practice, so I suggest additional reviewer(s).
Attachment #8789882 -
Flags: review?(msg4cfu) → review+
just want to add that specifically, I'm wondering when to up the major version, minor version, or patch version. Any definition on the practice?
Assignee | ||
Comment 8•9 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Christina Fu from comment #7)
> just want to add that specifically, I'm wondering when to up the major
> version, minor version, or patch version. Any definition on the practice?
major, minor, and patch versions are for major, minor, and patch releases, respectively. We haven't any major release in in many years and don't expect one any time soon. In a major release backawards compatibilty is not guaranteed. We normally do minor and patch releases. In a minor release ABI compaitluity is respected but we can introoduce to APIs. The promise is that as long as client code doesn't use the new API's it contunies to work without having to recompile or to link. I patch release on the other consists of bug fixes only and no new API are are supposed to be introduced. I know this is documented somewhere and I am looking for it.
Comment 9•9 years ago
|
||
Patch looks fine to me.
Questioned '#define JSS_BETA PR_TRUE', but found out that this first release was slated to be a Beta.
Assignee | ||
Comment 10•9 years ago
|
||
Upon consultation it was agreed that that its' best to instead release jss 4.4.0 once all downstream patches from fedora and rhel have been integrated upstream and properly tested upstream.
Assignee | ||
Comment 11•9 years ago
|
||
Closing this bug as Bug 1322364 replaces it.
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 9 years ago
Resolution: --- → WONTFIX
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•