Since I don't think we need worry about 8 and 9 going forward as they are at or close to EOL, and the guidance is that the major.minor.patch format will be used going forward I like the simple
GAT1007C1006ITS
where GA - is obvious
T1007 - is the requested build Tag (T and strip the dots from the tag)
C1006 - is the repository clone used (C and strip the dots from the clone revision)
ITS - is the builder's own identifier.
I don't think it is likely that the minor is likely to go to 2 digits but, it we could standardise on MMmmpp for the version number which would give
GAT100007C100006ITS
Are there any potential issues using that format?
@JDunphy - It would be trivial to add to your build_zimbra.sh by adding a --builder switch with a default at the top of the script
builder="FOSS"
Then, adding the below after the clone has run and before the dry-run test
PATCH_LEVEL="GAT${release//./}C${copyTag//./}$builder"
GAT1007C1006ITS
where GA - is obvious
T1007 - is the requested build Tag (T and strip the dots from the tag)
C1006 - is the repository clone used (C and strip the dots from the clone revision)
ITS - is the builder's own identifier.
I don't think it is likely that the minor is likely to go to 2 digits but, it we could standardise on MMmmpp for the version number which would give
GAT100007C100006ITS
Are there any potential issues using that format?
@JDunphy - It would be trivial to add to your build_zimbra.sh by adding a --builder switch with a default at the top of the script
builder="FOSS"
Then, adding the below after the clone has run and before the dry-run test
PATCH_LEVEL="GAT${release//./}C${copyTag//./}$builder"
Statistics: Posted by liverpoolfcfan — Tue Apr 16, 2024 11:16 am