Re: how do deal with versionless mercurial software ?
>+++ Dominik George [2013-10-02 15:49 +0200]:
>> Jerome BENOIT <firstname.lastname@example.org> schrieb:
>> >I am packaging a versionless library software maintained via a
>> >mercurial repository.
>> >Is there any custom for this case ?
>> I tend to use:
>> It sorts just below anything upstream might invent later (I don't like epoch).
>This is good advice. I've been bitten by just using YYYYMMDD as the
>version on unversioned code, and then upstream eventually inventing a
>version number, which of course is much smaller than 20 million, so I
>had to put in an epoch. Which doesn't really matter but just seems
>kind of annoying and unnecessary.
>The 'use an ISO date as version' idea comes from advice in the
>developer packaging docs somewhere. It would be good if this 0~ trick
>was mentioned there too so one could decide whether to use it or not
>at the time of initial packaging.
Another point to make - please chase the upstream to at least tag
things from time to time to help people trying to release and use
their code. It seems that releasing tarballs isn't cool enough for the
'leet github generation, but tags and reproducibility still matter.
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. email@example.com
Support the Campaign for Audiovisual Free Expression: http://www.eff.org/cafe/