Re: svn revs as version number

[Felix Natter <fnatter@gmx.net>]

Etienne Millon <etienne.millon@gmail.com> writes:

> * Felix Natter <fnatter@gmx.net> [130603 20:39]:
>> => The question is: Can we use "29618" (or "svn29618" or "r29618") as
>> the debian version number (consistent with upstream) or do we have to
>> use "0.0+svn29618"?
>
> Hello,

Thanks for all the useful answers.

> As others pointed you can use 29618 as a version number and add an
> epoch when upstream switch to a "classic" scheme.
>
> There's also another way to do it, which is to use 0~29618 which
> compares as less than 0. So, if upstream releases say 0.3, you can
> switch to this version without bumping the epoch.

That makes sense, and it's the way that Andrew Harvey already handles it
for jmapviewer (but I didn't know why so I thought the "0.0" was
obsolete)
=> so I will keep it this way (unless the JMapViewer folks happen to
switch to real version numbers [1]) :-)

> Personally I think this is better since you can release svn releases
> or numbered releases (if any) at any moment without ever touching the
> epoch. These versions are all in order:
>
>   - 0~29618 
>   - 0~31293
>   - 0.3 (first numbered release)
>   - 0.3+36932
>   - 0.4

[1] real version numbers IMHO have the advantage that version gaps can
be used to express incompatibility (i.e. jmapviewer 2.x is incompatible
to jmapviewer 1.x).

Thanks and Best Regards,
-- 
Felix Natter