Hi,
On 30-05-16 09:42, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> On Sun, May 29, 2016 at 12:40:32PM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
>> On Sun, May 29, 2016 at 12:00:28AM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> e.g. if you have a package 1.0 and add a complete branch update as a patch
> (or upgrade to a snapshot) on
On Sun, May 29, 2016 at 12:40:32PM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> On Sun, May 29, 2016 at 12:00:28AM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> > > > e.g. if you have a package 1.0 and add a complete branch update as a
> > > > patch
> > > > (or upgrade to a snapshot) one should do a 1.0+gitYYYDDMM-1 or wh
On Sun, May 29, 2016 at 12:00:28AM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> > > e.g. if you have a package 1.0 and add a complete branch update as a patch
> > > (or upgrade to a snapshot) one should do a 1.0+gitYYYDDMM-1 or whatever
> > > format
> > > you choose. Not 1.0-15 or so.
> > Here the question is "
On Sun, May 29, 2016 at 01:37:00AM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 07:44:11PM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> > e.g. if you have a package 1.0 and add a complete branch update as a patch
> > (or upgrade to a snapshot) one should do a 1.0+gitYYYDDMM-1 or whatever
> > forma
On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 07:44:11PM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> e.g. if you have a package 1.0 and add a complete branch update as a patch
> (or upgrade to a snapshot) one should do a 1.0+gitYYYDDMM-1 or whatever format
> you choose. Not 1.0-15 or so.
Here the question is "if you package unreleas
Hi,
I have seen various packages (mostly from the same maintainer, though) which
do branch updates in a imho wrong way.
Updates to a stable branch fixes or backporting fixes is OK. I don't deny
that or so. But the package IMHO should have a correct version then.
e.g. if you have a package 1.0 an
6 matches
Mail list logo