2011/1/11, Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 07:23:45AM +0100, David Sastre wrote: >>On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 07:57:23PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote: >>> On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 08:34:03PM +0100, David Sastre wrote: >>> >OK. Please bump the cygwin package release number when you do that. >>> Why bump the package release on something that has never been released? >>> I think it makes sense that the first release should be -1. >> >>That's what I understand from: >> >>2.?Do increase the version number no matter what (if upstream >>version didn't change, bump the Cygwin release number): even if the >>package was bad, even if it was removed from the server for >>a security issue, even if has only been discussed in mailing >>list and never uploaded: it costs nothing and avoids confusion >>in both setup.exe and people mind. > > The package was never on the server, i.e., it was never released. If > a package ever touches cygwin.com then, yes, you have to bump the > version any time you make any change no matter how tiny. > > I don't care if the package is released with -57 release number but I > don't want it to get into the common knowledge pool that it is a > requirement because it isn't.
Duly noted. Thanks for the clarification.
