[erlang-questions] Patch package OTP 18.3.4.6 released

[Lukas Larsson]

Hello,

On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 8:18 PM, Loïc Hoguin <essen@REDACTED> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> On 11/16/2017 12:29 PM, Hans Nilsson R wrote:
>
>> Patch Package:           OTP 18.3.4.6
>> Git Tag:                 OTP-18.3.4.6
>>
>
> I thought these tags were not supposed to be announced (that 18.3.4 would,
> but not 18.3.4.6). Did I miss something?
>

When the next major release is released we branch the patch version in
order to show that what is being patched in the previous version is not
implicitly part of the next version.

So in this case as long as OTP-19.0 was not released we patched OTP-18.3 by
adding a third patch numeral and all patches were merged to be part of
OTP-19.0.
But when OTP-19.0 was released, all patches released to OTP-18.3 are not
implicitly part of OTP-19.0 so we branch the version by adding a fourth
numeral.

So for all practical purposes 18.3.4.6 can be seen as 18.3.10, but because
we branched the versioning it is possible to deduce which patches on
OTP-18.3 that are part of 19.0 and which will be part of later versions of
OTP-19.x.

This is a bit confusing at first (at least it was for me...), but it embeds
more information into the version numbers which can be useful. There is a
description of the versioning scheme here: http://erlang.org/doc/system_
principles/versions.html

And then to answer your question, yes we do announce these patches.

We also sometimes do patches on not the tip of a previous major release,
i.e. 18.2.3, this would then we 18.2.3.1 or some such. These patches we
most likely will not announce.


>
> Asking because I'm tracking patch releases in the ci.erlang.mk plugin[1]
> but if you're going to announce these the same way as patch releases then I
> probably should track those instead.
>

You should definitely track the 18.3.4.x patches, but not the 18.2.x.y
patches. The same goes for 19.3.6.x patches, and whatever 20.x.y.z we will
end up at.

Lukas
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/attachments/20171117/69c3e4a9/attachment.htm>