| 1 |
On Sun, Nov 13, 2005 at 09:19:55AM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sunday 13 November 2005 04:00, Brian Harring wrote: |
| 3 |
> > *cough* that's that funky _p1 you're using there? :) |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> patchlevel... I think it gives a stronger impression that 2.0.53 is distinct |
| 6 |
> from 2.0.54. Is distinct the right word? I mean that it kind of shows that |
| 7 |
> 2.0.53 is done but there was something that needed to be fixed quickly. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
2.0.53.1 vs 2.0.53_p1 vs 2.0.53.p1 ... either of the three indicates |
| 10 |
2.0.53 had minor fix tagged onto the base 2.0.53 release... |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> Given |
| 13 |
> portage's history of using lots of dots, 2.0.53.1 doesn't have as much |
| 14 |
> impact. Is the "*cough*" a complaint of sorts? |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Well, knowing what you mean by pN, I'm just going to gesture wildly at |
| 17 |
my earlier email of "lets fix the whacked out versioning now". ;) |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
This really is a job for a micro; indication of "yeah, we released a |
| 20 |
good chunk of changes, but there were a few bugs, and these micro vers |
| 21 |
numbers are minor patches beyond that". |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Note that _p* is effectively no different then .p* (lots of dots); it |
| 24 |
still is a fourth component. The only relevant difference is that |
| 25 |
instead of fixing versioning now (this is assuming people view normal |
| 26 |
versioning as acceptable), we're introducing differing syntax. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Still changing the bugger; I say change it _permenantely_. People |
| 29 |
will be confused regardless due to the fact portage versioning has |
| 30 |
always been a bit nuts, plus the .51.22 change followed up by .53. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
If we go with _p*, we go with _p* _long_ term. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
So... which will it be? Fix our versioning now, or (subjective and |
| 35 |
harsh I admit) introduce another half step instead of correcting the |
| 36 |
mess once and all? :) |
| 37 |
~harring |
Archives