Re: xerces-c, xerces-c-devel, xerces-c-doc 2.1.0-2 available forreview/upload
On Sun, 3 Nov 2002, Gareth Pearce wrote: Anyone wishing to review these packages can point setup.exe to http://abackus.imagineis.com. I'll definitely review these when i get home ... hopefully they will solve my xerces-c related problems. Ping. Have you had a chance to review this package ?
Re: xerces-c, xerces-c-devel, xerces-c-doc 2.1.0-2 available forreview/upload
On Sun, 3 Nov 2002, Abraham Backus wrote: http://abackus.imagineis.com/xerces-c/xerces-c-2.1.0-2.tar.bz2 http://abackus.imagineis.com/xerces-c-devel/xerces-c-devel-2.1.0-2.tar.bz2 http://abackus.imagineis.com/xerces-c-doc/xerces-c-doc-2.1.0-2.tar.bz2 Anyone wishing to review these packages can point setup.exe to http://abackus.imagineis.com. You've changed the version number to 2.1.0-2, but this is not correct. You have to stick to x.y.z-1 until the package is included in the Cygwin net distro. When this becomes true and at some point you release an update you will have to change to -2 then -3 and so on.
Re: xerces-c, xerces-c-devel, xerces-c-doc 2.1.0-2 available forreview/upload
On Tue, 5 Nov 2002, Gareth Pearce wrote: Anyone wishing to review these packages can point setup.exe to http://abackus.imagineis.com. I'll definitely review these when i get home ... hopefully they will solve my xerces-c related problems. Ping. Have you had a chance to review this package ? As already posted - I had a chance for a 'quick' review - which found the Sorry, Gareth, I saw your review but misread the name. Right after I sent the message I realized my mistake. Anyway your last post adds some useful info about this package.
Re: xerces-c, xerces-c-devel, xerces-c-doc 2.1.0-2 available forreview/upload
On Tue, 2002-11-05 at 21:16, Pavel Tsekov wrote: On Sun, 3 Nov 2002, Abraham Backus wrote: http://abackus.imagineis.com/xerces-c/xerces-c-2.1.0-2.tar.bz2 http://abackus.imagineis.com/xerces-c-devel/xerces-c-devel-2.1.0-2.tar.bz2 http://abackus.imagineis.com/xerces-c-doc/xerces-c-doc-2.1.0-2.tar.bz2 Anyone wishing to review these packages can point setup.exe to http://abackus.imagineis.com. You've changed the version number to 2.1.0-2, but this is not correct. Actually, it's long practice here, that each update gets a new -x number, irrespective of whether they are released to the repository or not. I think it avoids *any* confusion in the reviewers to do this. Not doing it may lead to inaccurate feedback. Rob -- --- GPG key available at: http://users.bigpond.net.au/robertc/keys.txt. --- signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: xerces-c, xerces-c-devel, xerces-c-doc 2.1.0-2 available forreview/upload
On 6 Nov 2002, Robert Collins wrote: Anyone wishing to review these packages can point setup.exe to http://abackus.imagineis.com. You've changed the version number to 2.1.0-2, but this is not correct. Actually, it's long practice here, that each update gets a new -x number, irrespective of whether they are released to the repository or not. I think it avoids *any* confusion in the reviewers to do this. Not doing it may lead to inaccurate feedback. I use only links - copypaste is suffiecient for me. And if you're uploading files on sourceware you have one thing less to do i.e. rename the files.However I see that I tried to enforce my own preferences and for that I apologize.
Re: xerces-c, xerces-c-devel, xerces-c-doc 2.1.0-2 available forreview/upload
On Wed, 2002-11-06 at 00:37, Pavel Tsekov wrote: On 6 Nov 2002, Robert Collins wrote: Anyone wishing to review these packages can point setup.exe to http://abackus.imagineis.com. You've changed the version number to 2.1.0-2, but this is not correct. Actually, it's long practice here, that each update gets a new -x number, irrespective of whether they are released to the repository or not. I think it avoids *any* confusion in the reviewers to do this. Not doing it may lead to inaccurate feedback. I use only links - copypaste is suffiecient for me. And if you're uploading files on sourceware you have one thing less to do i.e. rename the files.However I see that I tried to enforce my own preferences and for that I apologize. No need to apologise, things can always be changed and negotiated. I don't understand what you mean by 'one less thing to do' though - there is no need (and in fact reasons not to) rename files when uploading to sourceware. Consider this: if the test copy we review was -3, and you approve that version, you should not rename it to -1, else when -2 comes out, all the testers will fail to upgrade. So -3 in review, stays as -3 when uploading. Likewise, updating -1 to -2 to -3 during the review process allows the testers to update properly. Does that make sense? Rob -- --- GPG key available at: http://users.bigpond.net.au/robertc/keys.txt. --- signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: xerces-c, xerces-c-devel, xerces-c-doc 2.1.0-2 available forreview/upload
On 6 Nov 2002, Robert Collins wrote: Consider this: if the test copy we review was -3, and you approve that version, you should not rename it to -1, else when -2 comes out, all the testers will fail to upgrade. So -3 in review, stays as -3 when uploading. Likewise, updating -1 to -2 to -3 during the review process allows the testers to update properly. Does that make sense? Ok, but if one releases a new Cygwin package shouldn't it get -1, which will make it first Cygwin release of this package ? And I'm under the impression that xerces is a new package :)
Re: xerces-c, xerces-c-devel, xerces-c-doc 2.1.0-2 available forreview/upload
On Wed, 2002-11-06 at 01:01, Pavel Tsekov wrote: On 6 Nov 2002, Robert Collins wrote: Consider this: if the test copy we review was -3, and you approve that version, you should not rename it to -1, else when -2 comes out, all the testers will fail to upgrade. So -3 in review, stays as -3 when uploading. Likewise, updating -1 to -2 to -3 during the review process allows the testers to update properly. Does that make sense? Ok, but if one releases a new Cygwin package shouldn't it get -1, which will make it first Cygwin release of this package ? And I'm under the impression that xerces is a new package :) No, it should get *a* number that will then monotonically increase within the same vendor version number. Rob -- --- GPG key available at: http://users.bigpond.net.au/robertc/keys.txt. --- signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: xerces-c, xerces-c-devel, xerces-c-doc 2.1.0-2 available forreview/upload
On 6 Nov 2002, Robert Collins wrote: On Wed, 2002-11-06 at 01:01, Pavel Tsekov wrote: On 6 Nov 2002, Robert Collins wrote: Consider this: if the test copy we review was -3, and you approve that version, you should not rename it to -1, else when -2 comes out, all the testers will fail to upgrade. So -3 in review, stays as -3 when uploading. Likewise, updating -1 to -2 to -3 during the review process allows the testers to update properly. Does that make sense? Ok, but if one releases a new Cygwin package shouldn't it get -1, which will make it first Cygwin release of this package ? And I'm under the impression that xerces is a new package :) No, it should get *a* number that will then monotonically increase within the same vendor version number. Ok, I've just checked the package naming conventions to refresh my memory. Check this: http://cygwin.com/setup.html#naming Maybe it should be updated.
Re: xerces-c, xerces-c-devel, xerces-c-doc 2.1.0-2 available forreview/upload
On Wed, 2002-11-06 at 04:18, Christopher Faylor wrote: I don't recall people bumping the -x numbers previously. I don't see why that's necessary. Theoretically, we are a small enough and intelligent enough group that we won't be confused when the contents of a file are updated without updating the file version. I think, in general, a new cygwin package should start out with a -1. It's hardly worth starting a long discussion about but, IMO, the -x numbers are incremented when there is a new cygwin release not when someone is providing packages for review. cgf http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2001-08/msg00061.html I don't care enough to argue, this is my last message on the subject. I've already stated my position, that not bumping the numbers during the package and repackage cycle will lead to confusion (IIRC it has once already). However, as Pavel is doing an excellent job with tracking what is pending and uploading 'stuff', my opinion is just that. Rob -- --- GPG key available at: http://users.bigpond.net.au/robertc/keys.txt. --- signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
