On 21/09/2021 20:20, Ken Brown via Cygwin-apps wrote:
[Redirected from the main cygwin list.]
On 9/21/2021 3:12 PM, Ken Brown via Cygwin wrote:
On 9/21/2021 1:55 PM, Brian Inglis via Cygwin wrote:
On 2021-09-21 10:58, Ken Brown via Cygwin wrote:
On 9/21/2021 11:29 AM, Brian Inglis wrote:
so suggest we mandate release 0 for test versions, as that would
follow naturally.
There's no need for that.
Maybe it would be a good suggestion then?
Release numbers starting with 0 already have a defined meaning.
They are to be used for upstream pre-release versions
e.g pkg-1.0-0.1.g12345678 is a pre-release of pkg 1.0, since this sorts
before pkg-1.0-1
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Versioning_Examples, included
by reference in https://cygwin.com/packaging-package-files.html, for
some more examples.
From my point of view as a maintainer, there are two main reasons I use
test releases.
1. For a package in which I'm also an upstream contributor (like Emacs
or TeX Live or Cygwin), I might want to make a test release of an
upcoming upstream release to catch bugs prior to the release. I
generally use release numbers like 0.1, 0.2,... for these.
2. If there's a new upstream release of a package that I'm less familiar
with, I just want to make a standard release, but I might not be
confident that there's no breakage on Cygwin. So I start with a test
release (with release number 1), and if no problems are reported after a
few weeks I untest it, keeping the release number unchanged.
Yeah. Brian's suggestion doesn't always work in this case.
If we wanted to a test release of pkg after pkg-1.0-5, without any
upstream changes, it would be pkg-1.0-6, we can't reset the release to 0.
I personally wouldn't have any use for a release number 0 in either case.
