[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Version numbers for VCS snapshots
From: |
Ricardo Wurmus |
Subject: |
Re: Version numbers for VCS snapshots |
Date: |
Thu, 21 Jan 2016 10:44:44 +0100 |
Ben Woodcroft <address@hidden> writes:
> On 12/01/16 19:26, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>> Ricardo Wurmus <address@hidden> skribis:
>>
>>> Would it make sense to separate our version identifier from the actual
>>> release version with a different character than “.”? Or should this be
>>> discussed elsewhere as it hasn’t anything to do with how we specify
>>> versions on the command line?
>> Probably. Debian, for instance, uses “2.0.11-9” where “9” denotes the
>> 9th package revision of upstream version “2.0.11”. We could probably
>> use that convention.
>>
>> In a previous discussion on this topic, I suggested that we should have
>> such a revision number instead of just “x.y.COMMIT”. The extra
>> monotonically-increasing revision number is needed to allow upgrades to
>> work as expected.
>>
>> So, a Git snapshot’s version number could be:
>>
>> 2.0.11-3.deadbeef
>> ^ ^ ^
>> | | `— upstream commit ID
>> | |
>> | `—— 3rd Guix package revision
>> |
>> latest upstream version
>>
>> The next snapshot would be:
>>
>> 2.0.11-4.cafeefac
>>
>> WDYT?
> I can't see anything wrong with this myself. Is this accepted policy now?
I think this is a good policy to follow. So far we didn’t always use
“-” to separate the upstream version from the revision + commit ID (or
did only I do this wrong?). Some packages use “.”, which is what
prompted me to ask for clarification.
> Also, is the convention for unreleased software to take 0.0.0 as the
> version as you suggest Ricardo e.g. 0.0.0-1.deadbeef ?
I think this is reasonable. It’s rather unusual for software to be
released as “0.0.0”, so I don’t think we need to worry about this. Even
then we could just update the Guix package revision number to force an
update.
~~ Ricardo
- Re: New CLI syntax for package version, (continued)
- Re: New CLI syntax for package version, Ricardo Wurmus, 2016/01/10
- Re: New CLI syntax for package version, Ricardo Wurmus, 2016/01/12
- Version numbers for VCS snapshots, Ludovic Courtès, 2016/01/12
- Re: Version numbers for VCS snapshots, Ben Woodcroft, 2016/01/20
- Re: Version numbers for VCS snapshots, Leo Famulari, 2016/01/21
- Re: Version numbers for VCS snapshots, Ricardo Wurmus, 2016/01/21
- Re: Version numbers for VCS snapshots, Leo Famulari, 2016/01/21
- Re: Version numbers for VCS snapshots, Ludovic Courtès, 2016/01/21
- Re: Version numbers for VCS snapshots,
Ricardo Wurmus <=
- Re: Version numbers for VCS snapshots, Ludovic Courtès, 2016/01/21
- Re: Version numbers for VCS snapshots, Ricardo Wurmus, 2016/01/21
- Re: Version numbers for VCS snapshots, Ludovic Courtès, 2016/01/23
- Re: Version numbers for VCS snapshots, Ricardo Wurmus, 2016/01/23
- Re: Version numbers for VCS snapshots, Ludovic Courtès, 2016/01/24
- Re: Version numbers for VCS snapshots, Eric Bavier, 2016/01/21
- Re: Version numbers for VCS snapshots, Jookia, 2016/01/21
- Re: Version numbers for VCS snapshots, Andy Wingo, 2016/01/22
- Re: Version numbers for VCS snapshots, Ricardo Wurmus, 2016/01/22
- Re: Version numbers for VCS snapshots, Ludovic Courtès, 2016/01/23