1 |
Hi. |
2 |
|
3 |
How should we version our packages in case we've backported upstream |
4 |
patches from stable branch of development? Bug 330667 requests _p or |
5 |
_pre. I feel that _p|_pre versions should be left for VCS (read |
6 |
development) versions of the package, while during backports we have the |
7 |
best version with all important upstream+gentoo fixes available to the |
8 |
moment and I'd better avoid to call it development. |
9 |
|
10 |
If we decide to go with _p or _pre could we agree on answers for the |
11 |
following questions: |
12 |
- Does single patch from upstream's VCS justify _p$(date|rev) version? |
13 |
What if this is _the only_ patch in the upstream's VCS? |
14 |
- Now what about two patches? Three? N? When does few patches became |
15 |
pile? |
16 |
- What if I drop single patch from the upstream's patchset for stable |
17 |
branch, should we drop _pre _p version and add -rN? |
18 |
- What if there are two dependent patches, and first one fixes |
19 |
indentation? Should we spend time on backporting second patch (time |
20 |
consuming and error prone process) or use both and live closer to |
21 |
upstream? |
22 |
|
23 |
I think without exact answers on this questions I don't think this bug |
24 |
330667 may request anything, only suggest... But what do you think? |
25 |
|
26 |
-- |
27 |
Peter. |