From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ricardo Wurmus Subject: Re: Version numbers for VCS snapshots Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 10:44:44 +0100 Message-ID: References: <874mem8mwx.fsf@gnu.org> <8737u344ov.fsf@elephly.net> <87twmjp2qs.fsf_-_@gnu.org> <56A063D1.80608@uq.edu.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:59091) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aMBnf-0003ee-Kh for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 21 Jan 2016 04:45:08 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aMBnZ-0006Fs-Tp for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 21 Jan 2016 04:45:07 -0500 In-Reply-To: <56A063D1.80608@uq.edu.au> List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-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: Ben Woodcroft Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org Ben Woodcroft writes: > On 12/01/16 19:26, Ludovic Court=C3=A8s wrote: >> Ricardo Wurmus skribis: >> >>> Would it make sense to separate our version identifier from the actua= l >>> release version with a different character than =E2=80=9C.=E2=80=9D? = Or should this be >>> discussed elsewhere as it hasn=E2=80=99t anything to do with how we s= pecify >>> versions on the command line? >> Probably. Debian, for instance, uses =E2=80=9C2.0.11-9=E2=80=9D where= =E2=80=9C9=E2=80=9D denotes the >> 9th package revision of upstream version =E2=80=9C2.0.11=E2=80=9D. We= could probably >> use that convention. >> >> In a previous discussion on this topic, I suggested that we should hav= e >> such a revision number instead of just =E2=80=9Cx.y.COMMIT=E2=80=9D. = The extra >> monotonically-increasing revision number is needed to allow upgrades t= o >> work as expected. >> >> So, a Git snapshot=E2=80=99s version number could be: >> >> 2.0.11-3.deadbeef >> ^ ^ ^ >> | | `=E2=80=94 upstream commit ID >> | | >> | `=E2=80=94=E2=80=94 3rd Guix package revision >> | >> latest upstream version >> >> The next snapshot would be: >> >> 2.0.11-4.cafeefac >> >> WDYT? > I can't see anything wrong with this myself. Is this accepted policy no= w? I think this is a good policy to follow. So far we didn=E2=80=99t always= 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, which= is what prompted me to ask for clarification. > Also, is the convention for unreleased software to take 0.0.0 as the=20 > version as you suggest Ricardo e.g. 0.0.0-1.deadbeef ? I think this is reasonable. It=E2=80=99s rather unusual for software to = be released as =E2=80=9C0.0.0=E2=80=9D, so I don=E2=80=99t think we need to = worry about this. Even then we could just update the Guix package revision number to force an update. ~~ Ricardo