And this sounds very reasonable, too. Also -rc seems to alert some folks and makes clear what they are doing ;)
Please keep the feedback flowing, very good discussion. Just a quick explanation why I would like to settle this out of the sudden quickly. It's a somewhat political issue. While I have no distro-preferrence (rsyslog should run great on as many platforms as possible), I can get the new versioning scheme into Fedora 9 if I do it by mid next week. That is a very nice incentive ;) Rainer > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:rsyslog- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Johnny Tan > Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 5:01 PM > To: rsyslog-users > Subject: Re: [rsyslog] rsyslog version numbering > > Raoul Bhatia [IPAX] wrote: > > besides that, we could skip the "rc" string and simply use 4.0.12-1 - > > like a build number which is used by some linux distributions. > > Actually, Red Hat-based distros (at least) use that "-1" for > internal changes. > > Let's say there is a version: 4.0.12rc3 > > I (or Red Hat) decide to build an RPM based on that, so my > version is: > 4.0.12rc3-1 > > > Then, Rainer releases a 4.0.12rc4. It has too many new > features in it, so I decide not to move to it. HOWEVER, it > also has one crucial bugfix that I need. So I take that > patch and backport it into my version. Now, my new *local* > version is: > 4.0.12rc3-2 > > So, I do like the idea of attaching rc* (because that makes > it clear the changes are from the developer), but not a > dash-number (-1, etc.) to the version, if at all possible, > because those tend to be localized/internal version number > changes. > > johnn > _______________________________________________ > rsyslog mailing list > http://lists.adiscon.net/mailman/listinfo/rsyslog _______________________________________________ rsyslog mailing list http://lists.adiscon.net/mailman/listinfo/rsyslog
