versioning

[choasmaster]

i think that my versioning system for ChoasNETOS is a bit odd, can you guys help me come up with a good system to keep track of where this thing is and where it's going. kinda like debians or the linux kernels versionaning


maybe alittle help with a roadmap of libraries to install and other packages and things

thanx


P.S

or maybe you like the system of

ChoasNETOS v1.0 "curtians" rc2
or maybe i should change the rc2 to pre2, i don't know    

wait, i am changing it again
ChoasNETOS v1.0 "broken glass" rc2

v2.0 or v3.0 will probably be more elegant of a release of it, so ill leave the big windows-killer joke to last

[ July 19, 2002: Message edited by: choasmaster ]

[Calum]

i reckon just increment your release candidate numbers, and only increment the version number by a point when there's some big change.

[Calum]

why is it choas and not chaos btw?

re: your OS, i think you should look at LR's Linux. He has done his own distro based on linux from scratch.

I could get it free on a cover CD this month. Should i? i wasn't going to bother, since i have a picky laptop and so on, but it looks like it might be of use to you.

And why does choas actually forage? and what does it forage for?

[choasmaster]

i got the idea for spelling chaos choas, when i mistyped it in for my aim screenname, and for the os, maybe i should rename it to ChaosNETOS, i don't know

[Calum]

no! no! i STRONGLY recommend that you keep it as ChoasNET OS  

[Master of Reality]

I recommend naming it ChaosNET OS.
Why not run the version number the same as most other Linux:
*.*.*
the first number being a major version number and mean that it is probly mostly incompatible with other numbers (like linux 2.*.* and 1.*.*).

the second number being the stable version number like keeping that odd numbers for development and even for the stable release.

the third number for the actual version number.

so it would probly be 1.0.0 or 1.1.1. Which did linux start at (the kernel)?

[ July 21, 2002: Message edited by: Master of Reality / Bob ]

[Calum]

quote:Originally posted by Master of Reality / Bob:
I recommend naming it ChaosNET OS.

No! christ! where's all the originality in this world? make it unique!    

quote:
Why not run the version number the same as most other Linux:
*.*.*
the first number being a major version number and mean that it is probly mostly incompatible with other numbers (like linux 2.*.* and 1.*.*).

the second number being the stable version number like keeping that odd numbers for development and even for the stable release.

the third number for the actual version number.

so it would probly be 1.0.0 or 1.1.1. Which did linux start at (the kernel)?

Yes, i suppose that makes sense, but hey, why cowtow to tradition?

re: linux, it started off at version 0.04 did it not? and went up to 0.05 quite fast. It also jumped from 0.2something or 0.3something right up to 0.95 if i'm right, but i could be wrong. Anybody actually remember it, since i am just remembering numbers out of a book?

[voidmain]

Well I definitely remember 0.95.X, I also remember 0.8X.X versions.  I think the first Linux version I tried was in the 0.6X.X range...  Whichever version it was had not yet had support for hard drives and ran off of floppy disk only.

[Master of Reality]

why not develop a string of symbols to use as markers for your versions??
why not name it 'gobourk' or 'Supermans Laundry'?

[choasmaster]

i know, now, instead of release canidates, it "try" cuase i scewed it up once, and another time, i didn't use the combreloc method of ld. and i upgraded the kernel version that i was useing, i have the whole system with X and lesstif down to about 600 or so megs, and i could probably take it down farther but i don't want to risk it. i think the versio i am using right now is
ChoasNETOS v1.0 "curtians" try3
im probably going to be changing the try level pretty soon. also when using

[DC]

quote:Originally posted by Calum:
Yes, i suppose that makes sense, but hey, why cowtow to tradition?

Because that way ppl will know what you mean

 

quote:
It also jumped from 0.2something or 0.3something right up to 0.95 if i'm right, but i could be wrong. Anybody actually remember it, since i am just remembering numbers out of a book?

Actually, it went from 0.12 to 0.95. Linus thought it was almost finished, since only networking was left to do. Well, he was wrong   . Networking proved to be a lot of work. Thet ended up using patch levels (the z in x.y.z - the latest kernel in the 2.4-tree is currently at patch level 18) and letters. The last one before 1.0 was 0.99.15Z   .


The first publicly available version was 0.01 btw. Sept. 17 1991 , according to Linus. There were earlier versions, but those were pretty much useless, and therefore not made available yet. Not that 0.01 was usefull   .

MoR's story about version numbers is pretty much complete (as I said, the third is patch level, not 'actual version' - but that's unimportant). However, before 1.0, you use numbers that indicate the completeness of the product. A version 0.40 should be 40% completed, for example.

Why not name your OS Chaox?  

Voidman: 0.8 didn't exist. 0.08 probably did though.

[voidmain]

You appear to be correct.  My memory has failed me. I must have run 0.11 and 0.12. I do remember when the kernel went to 0.95 though. And it could have been the various patch levels of that major version that have clogged my memory. In those days you upgraded kernels a couple of times a week with the new patch levels.

I believe it wasn't much after that that the SLS distro came out (you'll probably correct me on that as well). That's when Linux started to get easy.  Then Slackware came out and life was really good.  Then RedHat came out and there was no turning back. Also it appears that there was indeed hard disk support in the very early days, although limited. I remember my first taste was a floppy only copy though in early 1992.

[DC]

quote:Originally posted by VoidMain:
Also it appears that there was indeed hard disk support in the very early days, although limited. I remember my first taste was a floppy only copy though in early 1992.

That seems most likely...
It was originally a terminal emulator (Minix - what Linus used - didn't have a decent one), but started to become Linux (a true OS) after he added stuff like HD support (it originally didn't even have FD support). Anyway, he did that before 0.01 I think.

Of course, I wasn't there when it happened, I just read this from a book (co-written by Linus) - so I could be wrong.

[choasmaster]

i was thinking about naming it choatix, pronuced kay-ot-tix the ot being pronuced like otter

[choasmaster]

has anyone every gotten the 2.5.26 or so kernel's to compile and work correctly, cuase i haven't, i guess i should wait for 2.6 and rebuild whatever i finally name it with the 2.6 headers, instead of building it with the 2.4.18 headers and using a patched 2.4.19/*thank god for gentoo*/