| 1 |
>>>>> On Fri, 4 Nov 2016, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On 11/03/2016 05:11 PM, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 4 |
>> == Policy changes? == |
| 5 |
>> I think that the following new policies could make sense: |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>> 1. Revision number must be no longer than 9999: |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
> You likely mean "no higher than 9999", longer than would give large |
| 10 |
> values |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
The wording would be similar to "no longer than 4 digits". |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
>> 1a. to make <=X-r9999 reliable, |
| 15 |
>> 1b. to prevent pathological uses of revision as date. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> Given revision in most cases is incremental (except for some -r100, |
| 18 |
> -r200) cases, some structure here is likely good. I take it we're |
| 19 |
> talking about devmanual changes in this case for policy? |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Yes, it would be purely devmanual/tree policy. PMS will still mandate |
| 22 |
that the package manager can handle arbitrary long versions. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Looks like using multiples of 100 is best practice if there is |
| 25 |
the same PV in different slots. Not sure if we should codify that |
| 26 |
somewhere. (If nobody contradicts, this message could be used as |
| 27 |
future policy reference, though. :) |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Ulrich |
Archives