On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 06:37:46PM -0500, Steven A. Falco wrote: > On 1/19/22 05:18 PM, Eeli Kaikkonen wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 9:13 PM Steven A. Falco <stevenfa...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > It would still be helpful if the doc repo could be tagged at the same > > > point that everything else is tagged, because every single Fedora package > > > needs a correct version in its name. For example, it would be very > > > strange (perhaps "illegal") to package something called the 6.0.1 doc > > > that came from some random SHA in an untagged tree. > > > > I don't understand why this discussion is so difficult to understand. > > I agree with Jon and don't see any problem for distros. As far as I > > can see the point is that the documentation package version shouldn't > > be logically dependent on the KiCad packages or vice versa. You can > > have package kicad-v6.0-documentation version, say, 20222001 [date], > > can't you? You don't have to give it the version number 6.0.x. If a > > git tag is needed for technical reasons, let's have automatic tagging > > which adds a tag each day. > > > I don't think the discussion is difficult to understand.
> But Fedora's process doesn't map into what you have just proposed. Not just Fedora's but nearly any other distro do not work in that way... -- Saluton, Marco Ciampa _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
