On 1/24/07, martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
also sprach Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007.01.23.1738 +0000]:
> > You cannot predict the future. It might me that next version is not
> > 2.1 as you expected, but, e.g., 3.0. Why not base your version
> > number on things you *know* for sure: that the last released version
> > was 2.0?
>
> This is massively confused. If you name your version
> 2.1~20070123svn.r91, and the next veriosn is 2.1, 3.0 or 4090009009,
> the transition from the current version to the future version will
> work. The only future version which won't work is a version that
> compares lower than 2.1 (like, 2.1~~), so the suggestion is valid.
Please reread his point, because it'a a good one.
Say 2.0 is based on r90, and r91 comes out with an important patch,
then snapshot 2.0+svn-r91 and not 2.1~svn-r91. If you do the latter,
you're screwed if 2.0.1 comes out next.
I suppose if you're using a snapshot of SVN trunk it will be fixed
there as well, so you don't need to change the version number.
Anyway in my case upstream's releases are always confused, with
2.0beta1 referred to as '2.0' or '2.0 beta' and beta 2 also referred
to as '2.0 beta', etc. and as far as I know the next version will be
at least 2.1. Even if 2.0 is officially released I don't necessarily
want to package it.
--
Andrew Donnellan
ajdlinuxATgmailDOTcom (primary) ajdlinuxATexemailDOTcomDOTau (secure)
http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.wordpress.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED] hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58
http://linux.org.au http://debian.org
Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
