Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] going to need a 2.0.53-rc8

[Jason Stubbs]

On Tuesday 15 November 2005 00:32, Marius Mauch wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 00:24:02 +0900
>
> Jason Stubbs <jstubbs@g.o> wrote:
> > On Monday 14 November 2005 00:46, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> > > On Sunday 13 November 2005 11:52, Brian Harring wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Nov 13, 2005 at 09:19:55AM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> > > > > On Sunday 13 November 2005 04:00, Brian Harring wrote:
> > > > > > *cough* that's that funky _p1 you're using there? :)
> > > > >
> > > > > patchlevel... I think it gives a stronger impression that
> > > > > 2.0.53 is distinct from 2.0.54. Is distinct the right word? I
> > > > > mean that it kind of shows that 2.0.53 is done but there was
> > > > > something that needed to be fixed quickly.
> > > >
> > > > 2.0.53.1 vs 2.0.53_p1 vs 2.0.53.p1 ... either of the three
> > > > indicates 2.0.53 had minor fix tagged onto the base 2.0.53
> > > > release...
> > > >
> > > > > Given
> > > > > portage's history of using lots of dots, 2.0.53.1 doesn't have
> > > > > as much impact. Is the "*cough*" a complaint of sorts?
> > > >
> > > > Well, knowing what you mean by pN, I'm just going to gesture
> > > > wildly at my earlier email of "lets fix the whacked out
> > > > versioning now". ;)
> > >
> > > So then my suggested 2.0.53_p1 should be 2.0.54 and what is
> > > currently referred to as 2.0.54 should be 2.1.0?
> >
> > Any thoughts on this? If we use 2.0.54 for the fix for this, that can
> > go into ~arch before 2.0.53_pre7 goes to .53 and arch without
> > versioning getting screwed up. I'm still pretty sure 2.0.53 will be
> > stable (at least on some arch) in under 48 hours and the fix for this
> > should really go out at the same time or before...
>
> Replace 2.1.0 with 2.2.0 and I'll agree.

Brian? Others?

--
Jason Stubbs
-- 
gentoo-portage-dev@g.o mailing list