Ricardo Wurmus <rek...@elephly.net> skribis:
> Should we also take some time to reconsider how we name unreleased
> versions like arbitrary git commits?
Let do that!
> So far we have been picking the latest release version (or “0.0.0” if
> there hasn’t been any release) followed by “.” and either a date or a
> guix-internal revision number, then again a “.” followed by part of the
> commit hash.
>
> I’m afraid that we might accidentally introduce conflicts with future
> release versions, e.g. when the latest release only uses two digits
> (e.g. “0.1”) and we add a revision or a date (e.g. “0.1.1” or
> “0.1.20160112”) and the next release and the next official release
> switches to three digits (e.g. “0.1.1”).
>
> Would it make sense to separate our version identifier from the actual
> release version with a different character than “.”? Or should this be
> discussed elsewhere as it hasn’t anything to do with how we specify
> versions on the command line?
Probably. Debian, for instance, uses “2.0.11-9” where “9” denotes the
9th package revision of upstream version “2.0.11”. We could probably
use that convention.
In a previous discussion on this topic, I suggested that we should have
such a revision number instead of just “x.y.COMMIT”. The extra
monotonically-increasing revision number is needed to allow upgrades to
work as expected.
So, a Git snapshot’s version number could be:
2.0.11-3.deadbeef
^ ^ ^
| | `— upstream commit ID
| |
| `—— 3rd Guix package revision
|
latest upstream version
The next snapshot would be:
2.0.11-4.cafeefac
WDYT?
Ludo’.
