Re: release number when upstream *only* has git hashes?

2011-10-05 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 10/05/2011 04:35 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > On Wed, Oct 05, 2011 at 06:53:50AM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: >> On 10/04/2011 09:01 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: >> >>> Now do we want to put the git hash into the version >>> field too? >> Yes, because "git checkouts by date" are not sufficiently

Re: release number when upstream *only* has git hashes?

2011-10-05 Thread Toshio Kuratomi
On Wed, Oct 05, 2011 at 06:53:50AM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On 10/04/2011 09:01 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > > > Now do we want to put the git hash into the version > > field too? > Yes, because "git checkouts by date" are not sufficiently reliable to > provide deterministic checkouts from

Re: release number when upstream *only* has git hashes?

2011-10-05 Thread Toshio Kuratomi
On Tue, Oct 04, 2011 at 09:32:28PM -0700, Garrett Holmstrom wrote: > On 2011-10-04 12:01, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > > So my solyution: > > foo-0-1.20110120git.fc16 vs > > > > Your solution: > > foo-20110120-1.20110120git.fc16 > > > > (Since it's a snapshot, the date has to go into the release string

Re: release number when upstream *only* has git hashes?

2011-10-04 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 10/04/2011 09:01 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > On Tue, Oct 04, 2011 at 05:58:33PM +0200, Matej Cepl wrote: >> On 4.10.2011 16:38, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: >>> The date should not go there >>> as you cannot tell if upstream will someday switch to an actual version >>> string (which will then need an

Re: release number when upstream *only* has git hashes?

2011-10-04 Thread Garrett Holmstrom
On 2011-10-04 12:01, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > So my solyution: > foo-0-1.20110120git.fc16 vs > > Your solution: > foo-20110120-1.20110120git.fc16 > > (Since it's a snapshot, the date has to go into the release string anyway) > Which is uglier? > > Also, since these are snapshots, a date in the upst

Re: release number when upstream *only* has git hashes?

2011-10-04 Thread Toshio Kuratomi
On Tue, Oct 04, 2011 at 05:58:33PM +0200, Matej Cepl wrote: > On 4.10.2011 16:38, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > > The date should not go there > > as you cannot tell if upstream will someday switch to an actual version > > string (which will then need an Epoch to upgrade cleanly from the date). > > Tha

Re: release number when upstream *only* has git hashes?

2011-10-04 Thread Matej Cepl
On 4.10.2011 16:38, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > The date should not go there > as you cannot tell if upstream will someday switch to an actual version > string (which will then need an Epoch to upgrade cleanly from the date). That's your opinion or actually some rule? Well, it depends on the upstrea

Re: release number when upstream *only* has git hashes?

2011-10-04 Thread Toshio Kuratomi
On Tue, Oct 04, 2011 at 09:13:46AM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On 10/04/2011 08:04 AM, Eric Smith wrote: > > I wrote: > >> What should I use for the release number in a spec when upstream does > >> not have releases, and *only* has git hashes? It's not a prerelease > >> since it is not clear th

Re: release number when upstream *only* has git hashes?

2011-10-04 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 10/04/2011 08:04 AM, Eric Smith wrote: > I wrote: >> What should I use for the release number in a spec when upstream does >> not have releases, and *only* has git hashes? It's not a prerelease >> since it is not clear that there will ever be any official release. > > I meant "version number",

Re: release number when upstream *only* has git hashes?

2011-10-03 Thread Eric Smith
I wrote: > What should I use for the release number in a spec when upstream does > not have releases, and *only* has git hashes? It's not a prerelease > since it is not clear that there will ever be any official release. I meant "version number", not "release number". I imagine that the relea