From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Eric Bavier <ericbavier@openmailbox.org>
Subject: Re: Version numbers for VCS snapshots
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 16:08:24 -0600
Message-ID: <28b56993205dd70cb627aacf33b61c86@openmailbox.org>
References: <874mem8mwx.fsf@gnu.org> <8737u344ov.fsf@elephly.net>
	<87twmjp2qs.fsf_-_@gnu.org> <56A063D1.80608@uq.edu.au>
	<idjy4bj9shf.fsf@bimsb-sys02.mdc-berlin.net> <877fj2wrpk.fsf@gnu.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8;
 format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:38188)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <ericbavier@openmailbox.org>) id 1aMNPG-00076u-Dn
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 21 Jan 2016 17:08:43 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <ericbavier@openmailbox.org>) id 1aMNPF-00059l-Jb
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 21 Jan 2016 17:08:42 -0500
In-Reply-To: <877fj2wrpk.fsf@gnu.org>
List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution."
	<guix-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:guix-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
To: ludo@gnu.org
Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org, guix-devel-bounces+ericbavier=openmailbox.org@gnu.org

On 2016-01-21 15:25, ludo@gnu.org wrote:
> Ricardo Wurmus <ricardo.wurmus@mdc-berlin.de> skribis:
>=20
>> Ben Woodcroft <b.woodcroft@uq.edu.au> writes:
>>=20
>>> On 12/01/16 19:26, Ludovic Court=C3=A8s wrote:
>=20
> [...]
>=20
>>>> So, a Git snapshot=E2=80=99s version number could be:
>>>>=20
>>>>    2.0.11-3.deadbeef
>>>>      ^    ^    ^
>>>>      |    |    `=E2=80=94 upstream commit ID
>>>>      |    |
>>>>      |    `=E2=80=94=E2=80=94 3rd Guix package revision
>>>>      |
>>>>    latest upstream version
>>>>=20
>>>> The next snapshot would be:
>>>>=20
>>>>    2.0.11-4.cafeefac
>>>>=20
>>>> WDYT?
>>> I can't see anything wrong with this myself. Is this accepted policy=20
>>> now?
>>=20
>> I think this is a good policy to follow.  So far we didn=E2=80=99t alw=
ays use
>> =E2=80=9C-=E2=80=9D to separate the upstream version from the revision=
 + commit ID (or
>> did only I do this wrong?).  Some packages use =E2=80=9C.=E2=80=9D, wh=
ich is what
>> prompted me to ask for clarification.
>=20
> If there are no objections, I=E2=80=99ll commit the attached patch, whi=
ch will
> make it Official Policy.
>=20
> Thoughts?

My only issue with the attached patch is that the commit identifier in=20
the example is not 7 digits (characters?) as recommended.

--=20
`~Eric