Simon McVittie writes:
> Approach 1, which is (IMO) better when the changes you are making in
> experimental are truly experimental, like enabling features or patches
> whose medium-term future you're not sure about:
> 2.2.5-5+exp1, ... or -6~exp1, ... or whatever to experimental
> 2.2.5-6 to un
Re: Adam D. Barratt 2014-09-25
<3653b875c93fd474b8b354b4c76f4...@mail.adsl.funky-badger.org>
> On 2014-09-25 8:16, Daniel Pocock wrote:
> >Or should my next upload
> >to unstable by 2.2.5-8? Or do I just ignore the version numbers I
> >uploaded to experimental and use 2.2.5-6 as the next version
On 25/09/14 13:21, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Sep 2014, Simon McVittie wrote:
>> Approach 1, which is (IMO) better when the changes you are making in
>> experimental are truly experimental, like enabling features or patches
>> whose medium-term future you're not sure about:
>>
On Thu, 25 Sep 2014, Simon McVittie wrote:
> Approach 1, which is (IMO) better when the changes you are making in
> experimental are truly experimental, like enabling features or patches
> whose medium-term future you're not sure about:
>
> 2.2.5-5+exp1, ... or -6~exp1, ... or whatever to experime
On 25/09/14 08:16, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>
> Is there any convention for version numbers in experimental?
>
> E.g. when uploading to backports, we add a suffix like "A.B.C~bpo70+1"
> so that the system can cleanly upgrade to version A.B.C when upgrading
> to the next stable release.
>
> I have a
On Thu, 25 Sep 2014 11:15:46 +0200
Daniel Pocock wrote:
> If I upload 2.2.5-8 to unstable, should it include the changelog
> entries for experimental too or that doesn't matter either way?
Depends if 2.2.5-8 includes all the changes made in experimental or
whether experimental was just for an ex
On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 09:16:46AM +0200, Daniel Pocock wrote:
> Is there any convention for version numbers in experimental?
No such convention exists TTBOMK.
[...]
> I uploaded 2.2.5-6 and 2.2.5-7 to experimental. Should I have given
> them versions like 2.2.5-6~exp1 or something and then uplo
Le Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 11:15:46AM +0200, Daniel Pocock a écrit :
> On 25/09/14 10:00, Neil Williams wrote:
> > On Thu, 25 Sep 2014 09:42:42 +0200
> > Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> >
> >> Quoting Daniel Pocock (2014-09-25 09:16:46)
> >>> I have a package, version 2.2.5-5 in unstable and testing
> >>>
On 25/09/14 10:00, Neil Williams wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Sep 2014 09:42:42 +0200
> Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>
>> Quoting Daniel Pocock (2014-09-25 09:16:46)
>>> I have a package, version 2.2.5-5 in unstable and testing
>>>
>>> I uploaded 2.2.5-6 and 2.2.5-7 to experimental. Should I have
>>> given the
On Thu, 25 Sep 2014 09:42:42 +0200
Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Quoting Daniel Pocock (2014-09-25 09:16:46)
> > I have a package, version 2.2.5-5 in unstable and testing
> >
> > I uploaded 2.2.5-6 and 2.2.5-7 to experimental. Should I have
> > given them versions like 2.2.5-6~exp1 or something and
Quoting Daniel Pocock (2014-09-25 09:16:46)
>
> Is there any convention for version numbers in experimental?
There are multiple conventions.
> E.g. when uploading to backports, we add a suffix like "A.B.C~bpo70+1"
> so that the system can cleanly upgrade to version A.B.C when upgrading
> to th
On 2014-09-25 8:16, Daniel Pocock wrote:
Or should my next upload
to unstable by 2.2.5-8? Or do I just ignore the version numbers I
uploaded to experimental and use 2.2.5-6 as the next version number for
an unstable upload, even if it doesn't contain the same things as
2.2.5-6 in experimental?
On Thu, 25 Sep 2014 09:16:46 +0200
Daniel Pocock wrote:
>
> Is there any convention for version numbers in experimental?
>
> E.g. when uploading to backports, we add a suffix like "A.B.C~bpo70+1"
> so that the system can cleanly upgrade to version A.B.C when upgrading
> to the next stable relea
Is there any convention for version numbers in experimental?
E.g. when uploading to backports, we add a suffix like "A.B.C~bpo70+1"
so that the system can cleanly upgrade to version A.B.C when upgrading
to the next stable release.
I have a package, version 2.2.5-5 in unstable and testing
I uplo
14 matches
Mail list logo
