Re: versions / suffixes in experimental
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 <dr@jones.dk> 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 then upload
> >>> a proper 2.2.5-6 to unstable when I am happy with it? 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?
> >> Both approaches makes sense to me - depending on your reason for
> >> using experimental in the first place - and on your mood.
> > Any approach which tries to use the same version in multiple suites at
> > the same time does not make sense to the archive. The mood of the
> > maintainer is rightly ignored by dak.
> >
>
> Personally, I think the suffix would be useful for cases where the
> upload to experimental and unstable are both otherwise identical
>
> 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?
Hi Daniel,
Recently, I have have used Experimental as dead-end branches, for instance:
- foo_1.2-3 uploaded to Unstable.
- foo_1.2-4~experimental1 uploaded to Experimental
- foo_1.2-4 uploaded to Unstable with the changelog entry from
version 1.2-4~experimental1 merged in the entry for version 1.2-4.
I think that this is nicer than having a changelog entry for Unstable pointing
at the changelog entry from the upload to Experimental: think for instance to
the links to the change files in the package tracker.
Have a nice day,
--
Charles
Reply to: