Hi All,
As you know I've been angling for some kind of solid way forward with
version numbers for a while so this email is basically a description of
what has been done about this and how we'll move forward.
As some of you know, the version is automatically grabbed from the git
tags when building
On Sun, 2010-11-28 at 15:31 +, Colin Guthrie wrote:
[...]
> So if we only had a single version number, the same problems would be
> apparent with our current version conundrum. As a compromise for
> simplifying things and for getting a sensible version tag pushed to
> master, we decided to adop
On 2010-11-28 16:31, Colin Guthrie wrote:
Hi All,
As you know I've been angling for some kind of solid way forward with
version numbers for a while so this email is basically a description of
what has been done about this and how we'll move forward.
Thanks for your work so far, Colin!
But can
'Twas brillig, and Arun Raghavan at 29/11/10 06:19 did gyre and gimble:
> I might be missing something, but this scheme seems to preclude
> intermediate releases off the -dev branch (since the generated tarball
> will always have a $MAJOR.0 version). Or would that be solvable by
> pushing a $MAJOR.
'Twas brillig, and David Henningsson at 29/11/10 08:04 did gyre and gimble:
> On 2010-11-28 16:31, Colin Guthrie wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> As you know I've been angling for some kind of solid way forward with
>> version numbers for a while so this email is basically a description of
>> what has been
'Twas brillig, and Colin Guthrie at 28/11/10 15:31 did gyre and gimble:
> Whenever the next commit is made to master, it will be tagged as
> "$(($MAJOR+1)).0-dev". This allows the correct version number to be
> represented in builds made from the git tree. Likewise, when a commit is
> pushed to "$M
On Mon, 2010-11-29 at 09:34 +, Colin Guthrie wrote:
> 'Twas brillig, and David Henningsson at 29/11/10 08:04 did gyre and gimble:
> > On 2010-11-28 16:31, Colin Guthrie wrote:
> >> Hi All,
> >>
> >> As you know I've been angling for some kind of solid way forward with
> >> version numbers for a
'Twas brillig, and Colin Guthrie at 28/11/10 15:31 did gyre and gimble:
> As you know I've been angling for some kind of solid way forward with
> version numbers for a while so this email is basically a description of
> what has been done about this and how we'll move forward.
> ...
OK, with no ma
'Twas brillig, and Colin Guthrie at 29/11/10 09:41 did gyre and gimble:
> 'Twas brillig, and Colin Guthrie at 28/11/10 15:31 did gyre and gimble:
>> Whenever the next commit is made to master, it will be tagged as
>> "$(($MAJOR+1)).0-dev". This allows the correct version number to be
>> represented
