GNU bug report logs - #13578
A new versioning scheme for automake releases, and a new branching scheme for the Git repository

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Jack Kelly <jack <at> jackkelly.name>
To: Diego Elio Pettenò <flameeyes <at> flameeyes.eu>
Cc: 13578 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Stefano Lattarini <stefano.lattarini <at> gmail.com>, automake <at> gnu.org
Subject: bug#13578: [IMPORTANT] A new versioning scheme for automake releases, and a new branching scheme for the Git repository
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2013 16:47:40 +1100

Diego Elio Pettenò <flameeyes <at> flameeyes.eu> writes:
> On 31/01/2013 20:58, Jack Kelly wrote:
>> IMHO, that seems like a great way to cause trouble for unsuspecting
>> users. (Anyone remember KDE4.0?) Can you expand on why you think it's a
>> good plan?
>
> Because unlike KDE, automake can put a big fat warning in the generated
> configure that says "You're using a version unsuitable for production",
> and then people would understand it much better.

Or at automake invocation time?

> KDE 4.0 was a screwup because there was no big fat warning, and users
> insisted to have it. No user _asks_ for automake.
>
>> Is there a system like X.beta1, X.beta2, ..., X.0 that is going to fit
>> the ordering system for most package managers? Bonus points if it works
>> in asciibetical order, too.
>
> Good luck finding one. Gentoo would be fine with X.Y_betaZ — but I
> honestly dislike X.Yb because that kind of stuff is usually _after_ X.Y
> for almost everything but autotools..

Fair points. +1 to calling the betas "X.0".

-- Jack

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.