2011/1/11, jdzstz - gmail dot com : > 2011/1/11 David Sastre : >> 2011/1/11, Christopher Faylor wrote: >>> On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 07:23:45AM +0100, David Sastre wrote: >>>>On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 07:57:23PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote: >>>>> On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 08:34:03PM +0100, David Sastre wrote: >>>>> >OK. Please bump the cygwin package release number when you do that. >>>>> Why bump the package release on something that has never been released? >>>>> I think it makes sense that the first release should be -1. >>>> >>>>That's what I understand from: >>>> >>>>2.?Do increase the version number no matter what (if upstream >>>>version didn't change, bump the Cygwin release number): even if the >>>>package was bad, even if it was removed from the server for >>>>a security issue, even if has only been discussed in mailing >>>>list and never uploaded: it costs nothing and avoids confusion >>>>in both setup.exe and people mind. >>> >>> The package was never on the server, i.e., it was never released. If >>> a package ever touches cygwin.com then, yes, you have to bump the >>> version any time you make any change no matter how tiny. >>> >>> I don't care if the package is released with -57 release number but I >>> don't want it to get into the common knowledge pool that it is a >>> requirement because it isn't. >> >> Duly noted. Thanks for the clarification. >> > Do you want to renumber the packages to varnish-xxx-1 or I keep > actual name "varnish-xxx-5"?? > > The only problem with rename is that old messages in cygwin-apps > mailist can confuse in the future.
Let's keep it. Thanks.
