On my project's page, http://drupal.org/project/fb, the download link created by drupal.org is for the 3.0 release. I'd like the 3.1 beta release to appear there instead.

Can you make that happen? I cannot find a setting that allows me to control it. I can't publish the 6.x-3.x-dev link without also publishing the 3.0 link, but I want my users to upgrade to 3.1, not 3.0, even though 3.1 is in beta.

Comments

dave reid’s picture

The table will not show alpha/beta/rc releases when you have a previous stable version that exists (in your case 3.0) until you actually make a 3.1 official release.

greggles’s picture

Status: Active » Fixed

If you want to go through a beta cycle and have it shown on the project page you would need to create a new branch.

Dave Cohen’s picture

Status: Fixed » Active

I made a 3.0 branch, and that's where I made the 3.0 tag. The 3.x branch is where I tagged the 3.1 beta. Ideally, they would both show on the project page. Is there documentation how to do it correctly?

If I can only have one, I'd rather the 3.1 beta. Can you delete the 3.0 release for me?

greggles’s picture

Status: Active » Fixed

I made a 3.0 branch

That was probably a mistake. 6.x-3.0.x is not a valid branch format afaik http://drupalcode.org/project/fb.git/tree/refs/heads/6.x-3.0.x

that's where I made the 3.0 tag

ok.

The 3.x branch is where I tagged the 3.1 beta. Ideally, they would both show on the project page. Is there documentation how to do it correctly?

You've taken the numbering one level deeper than it's supposed to. You should have created a 6.x-4.x branch and your "3.1 beta" should be a "6.x-4.0-beta".

dww’s picture

Dave Cohen’s picture

@greggles, are point releases for projects supported? Is there ever a reason for a project to have a 3.1 release instead of a 4.0?

greggles’s picture

@Dave Cohen - of course they are and of course there is, but it was a design decision/limitation at this point that they can't.

I think it matches the philosophy that the "3.1" release is a bugfix release on top of 3.0 and therefore shouldn't really need a beta. If you like the beta so much more, you should just make it the 3.1. If it has bugs, fix them in a 3.2.

I think your comment on the other issue explains this perfectly: " If I could delete that damn 3.0 release (the node on d.o, not the code), I wouldn't have that problem."

If you delete the 3.0 then people will be strongly encouraged (via update_status, and initial downloads) to upgrade to 3.1-beta. So...just make 3.1-beta your 3.1 code and be happy.

dww’s picture

Right. If 3.1-beta is so much better and more stable than 3.0, it should just be 3.1. If it's not better than 3.0 then it shouldn't be what people are encouraged to download and use.

Dave Cohen’s picture

Good points and good to know how it works. Next time I need to make a similar change, I'll make a new major release number. This time I'll just call it 3.1. Thanks

Status: Fixed » Closed (fixed)

Automatically closed -- issue fixed for 2 weeks with no activity.

Project: Drupal.org infrastructure » Drupal.org customizations
Component: Drupal.org module » Miscellaneous