This is the mail archive of the
cygwin-apps
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: Question about clisp version naming
- From: Achim Gratz <Stromeko at nexgo dot de>
- To: cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com
- Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 20:27:20 +0100
- Subject: Re: Question about clisp version naming
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <5500B536 dot 4050108 at cornell dot edu> <1426112433 dot 11504 dot 18 dot camel at cygwin dot com> <874mpq4sxr dot fsf at Rainer dot invalid> <5503122C dot 9000601 at cornell dot edu>
Ken Brown writes:
>> Version numbers like the one Ken has proposed are becoming common in
>> Linux distributions, so we'd rather check that setup handles them
>> correctly. I think Jari already uses a bunch of them. The thing here
>> is that for all versioning schemes that use hashes you need to prepend
>> an ISO date so things sort correctly, but I'd rather not append this to
>> the release number, so I'd suggest VERSION=2.49+YYYYMMDDhg15623 instead.
>> Also, I don't think it's a good idea to allow "." in the release
>> number. Alphas already work in that place (I use that for snapshots
>> since years) and are a lot less ambigous if you try to parse the release
>> out of a file name.
>
> Sorry, but Yaakov says we already allow dots in the release number,
> and he's the distro czar. So I'm going with his suggestion.
As you wish. I still think his view is somewhat unique looking at the
version numbers in several Linux distros that provide packages
in-between-official-releases from several VCS. The only case that I
know where the VCS revision tag was used in the relase part of the
version string was when the release was made from a local branch in all
other cases they'd been appended to the latest release version string.
Regards,
Achim.
--
+<[Q+ Matrix-12 WAVE#46+305 Neuron microQkb Andromeda XTk Blofeld]>+
Samples for the Waldorf Blofeld:
http://Synth.Stromeko.net/Downloads.html#BlofeldSamplesExtra