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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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",
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
10 matches
Mail list logo