[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Versioning of flexbar



Hi Johannes,

On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 02:47:58PM +0000, Johannes.Roehr@mdc-berlin.de wrote:
> you are completely right that the scheme of Flexbar version
> numbers does not make sense. I also noticed that a while
> after I started with it - but a little late ;)

:-)
 
> One of the two proposed schemes should definately be the
> way to go. Personally, I prefer scheme (B). But I wonder if
> the other one would make less complications as 2.34 exists
> as package. I also received your email with the information
> that Flexbar 2.40 is already accepted.

Yes, I uploaded this since this would have made the least trouble
versioning wise in the Debian versioning scheme.  Otherwise I
would have needed to use a so called "epoch" which says:

   2.34 < 1:2.4  (and even < 2:2.3   or  < 3:1.0)

With this epoch mechanism you can force a version number to be higher
but usually we try to avoid this and so I was simply waiting for any
decision of yours before introducing it.

> The next release will probably have version number 2.5 and
> I would then continue with 2.5.1 etc. Is that ok and would
> number 2.5.0 have any advantage over 2.5?

No, both is fine and perfectly a matter of your taste.  Since you now
found a decision about the versioning the next release will than get the
epoch version

   1:2.5  (or 1:2.5.0  - both is fine)

and will be regarded as newer than any other previously uploaded version
of flexbar.  It would be great if you would keep uns informed about a
new upstream version since it might need further adaptions to our
automatic version detection (debian/watch).
 
> Concerning the inconsistency with old releases, would you
> consider to somehow adapt the old version numbers or do
> you have some advice for me how to handle it best to keep
> confusion low, also on sourceforge?

Well, regarding the releases in Debian we can not change the past and
thus I'd leave the decision to you how you cope with the old versions
in SourceForge.  May be it is also not a clever idea to rename some
released files afterwards - so you can choose between two not so good
ideas. :-)
 
Thanks for your response

     Andreas.

-- 
http://fam-tille.de


Reply to: