Closed (fixed)
Project:
Drupal.org customizations
Component:
Miscellaneous
Priority:
Normal
Category:
Support request
Assigned:
Unassigned
Reporter:
Created:
16 Sep 2011 at 14:10 UTC
Updated:
21 Aug 2014 at 21:00 UTC
Jump to comment: Most recent
Comments
Comment #1
dave reidThe 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.
Comment #2
gregglesIf you want to go through a beta cycle and have it shown on the project page you would need to create a new branch.
Comment #3
Dave Cohen commentedI 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?
Comment #4
gregglesThat 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
ok.
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".
Comment #5
dwwSee also #647428: Show latest prerelease (if different from recommended release) with dev releases
Comment #6
Dave Cohen commented@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?
Comment #7
greggles@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.
Comment #8
dwwRight. 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.
Comment #9
Dave Cohen commentedGood 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