On Fri, 2015-03-13 at 14:42 -0500, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote: > On Fri, 2015-03-13 at 20:27 +0100, Achim Gratz wrote: > > 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. > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Package_Versioning > > Except we don't (yet) have Epoch (PTC).
I should also point out that packages already using extended VERSIONs may not be able to switch immediately to this scheme without a real VERSION bump. -- Yaakov
