Re: Dealing with rolling release versioning
Reindl Harald wrote:
> to make that clear
>
> Version:
> Release: MMDD.1%{?dist}
>
> where the .1 is the typical usage of Release
This should actually be:
Release: 1.MMDD%{?dist}
as per the guidelines.
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Dealing with rolling release versioning
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 02:38:10PM -0500, Jaroslav Skarvada wrote: > they now use 'daily-MMDD' as the version, it is even shown in the > about dialog. They provide daily builds. It doesn't seem they are > going to change this release model in the near future (but I will > recheck with them). Personally I would go with MMDD as the > version. Anytime later, if the release model change, we will be able > to add epoch and use different numbering. Just my two cents Yes, this makes sense to me too. It's not that they no longer have versions, it's that they have daily versions with a naming scheme which corresponds to that. That's presuming that you're actually using the snapshot corresponding to the official daily build, not just a checkout that happens to share the date. -- Matthew Miller Fedora Project Leader -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Dealing with rolling release versioning
- Original Message - > On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Till Maas < opensou...@till.name > wrote: > > > On Mo, Nov 30, 2015 at 11:28:57 -0600, Richard Shaw wrote: > > > Is there any reason not to use the date as the version? It's in MMDD > > format so there shouldn't be a upgrade path issue but this isn't explicitly > > covered in the packaging guidelines that I can find. > > If you make it as a post release from the latest regular release, you > can easily adjust if they go back to normal releases without requiring > an epoch. > > I agree that would work, but staying canonical with upstream, if they ask, > "What version are you using?", 0.4.1 is not the correct answer. I think it > would be different if I was doing actual checkouts but they provide archives > which include the date. > > Thanks, > Richard > > -- > devel mailing list > devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Hi, they now use 'daily-MMDD' as the version, it is even shown in the about dialog. They provide daily builds. It doesn't seem they are going to change this release model in the near future (but I will recheck with them). Personally I would go with MMDD as the version. Anytime later, if the release model change, we will be able to add epoch and use different numbering. Just my two cents thanks & regards Jaroslav -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Dealing with rolling release versioning
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Till Maas wrote: > On Mo, Nov 30, 2015 at 11:28:57 -0600, Richard Shaw wrote: > > > Is there any reason not to use the date as the version? It's in MMDD > > format so there shouldn't be a upgrade path issue but this isn't > explicitly > > covered in the packaging guidelines that I can find. > > If you make it as a post release from the latest regular release, you > can easily adjust if they go back to normal releases without requiring > an epoch. I agree that would work, but staying canonical with upstream, if they ask, "What version are you using?", 0.4.1 is not the correct answer. I think it would be different if I was doing actual checkouts but they provide archives which include the date. Thanks, Richard -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Dealing with rolling release versioning
Am 30.11.2015 um 18:58 schrieb Till Maas:
On Mo, Nov 30, 2015 at 11:28:57 -0600, Richard Shaw wrote:
Is there any reason not to use the date as the version? It's in MMDD
format so there shouldn't be a upgrade path issue but this isn't explicitly
covered in the packaging guidelines that I can find.
If you make it as a post release from the latest regular release, you
can easily adjust if they go back to normal releases without requiring
an epoch
to make that clear
Version:
Release: MMDD.1%{?dist}
where the .1 is the typical usage of Release
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Dealing with rolling release versioning
On Mo, Nov 30, 2015 at 11:28:57 -0600, Richard Shaw wrote: > Is there any reason not to use the date as the version? It's in MMDD > format so there shouldn't be a upgrade path issue but this isn't explicitly > covered in the packaging guidelines that I can find. If you make it as a post release from the latest regular release, you can easily adjust if they go back to normal releases without requiring an epoch. Regards Till -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Dealing with rolling release versioning
I have a project that stopped providing versioned releases and went to a rolling release model using the date. In this case these are not "pre" or "post" releases or snapshot releases. Is there any reason not to use the date as the version? It's in MMDD format so there shouldn't be a upgrade path issue but this isn't explicitly covered in the packaging guidelines that I can find. Thanks, Richard -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
