the beta bit

[Rick Hillegas <Ri...@Sun.COM>]

I'm getting dangerously close to building a beta candidate from the new 
branch. However, I'm confused about release numbering and the beta bit.

1) If no one objects, I'd like to change my mind and call this candidate 
10.2.0.5 beta. For purely esthetic reasons, I'd like to shoot for 
calling the first release candidate 10.2.1.0.

2) And now for the beta flag. The instructions at 
http://wiki.apache.org/db-derby/DerbySnapshotOrRelease tell me to make 
sure the beta flag is set to true in release.properties. It turns out 
that the flag is already set to true. When I build, the resulting 
sysinfo claims that the code is alpha, not beta. The release id is 
"10.2.0.5 alpha - (430831:430834)". This looks peculiar. What file needs 
to be tweeked to give this a beta rather than an alpha name?

Thanks,
-Rick

Re: the beta bit

[Daniel John Debrunner <dj...@apache.org>]

Rick Hillegas wrote:
> I'm getting dangerously close to building a beta candidate from the new
> branch. However, I'm confused about release numbering and the beta bit.
> 
> 1) If no one objects, I'd like to change my mind and call this candidate
> 10.2.0.5 beta. For purely esthetic reasons, I'd like to shoot for
> calling the first release candidate 10.2.1.0.
> 
> 2) And now for the beta flag. The instructions at
> http://wiki.apache.org/db-derby/DerbySnapshotOrRelease tell me to make
> sure the beta flag is set to true in release.properties. It turns out
> that the flag is already set to true. When I build, the resulting
> sysinfo claims that the code is alpha, not beta. The release id is
> "10.2.0.5 alpha - (430831:430834)". This looks peculiar. What file needs
> to be tweeked to give this a beta rather than an alpha name?

The zero in the third position forces alpha.

Covered here:

http://db.apache.org/derby/papers/versionupgrade.html

So I think you need 10.2.1.x beta

Dan.