GNU bug report logs - #74137
[PATCH] gnu: Add emacs-vi-tilde-fringe.

Previous Next

Full log

Message #20 received at 74137 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Nicolas Goaziou <mail <at> nicolasgoaziou.fr>
To: Rostislav Svoboda <rostislav.svoboda <at> gmail.com>
Cc: Andrew Tropin <andrew <at> trop.in>,
 Katherine Cox-Buday <cox.katherine.e+guix <at> gmail.com>,
 Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler <at> gmail.com>, 74137 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#74137] [PATCH] gnu: Add emacs-vi-tilde-fringe.
Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2024 17:05:29 +0100

Rostislav Svoboda <rostislav.svoboda <at> gmail.com> writes:

>> Therefore, I suggest to keep using the commit you refer to (f1597...),
>> but mark it as version 1.0 instead of an obscure 1.0-1.f1597a8.
>
> Did you mean 1.0-0.f1597a8?

Yes.

> Many Emacs packages have arbitrary version numbers like 0.1, 1.0,
> 0.07, 0.3.0, 20241019.2151, etc., or sometimes no version at all.
> (Believe me, I’ve seen it all.) The only meaningful and reliable part
> is actually just the commit hash, like f1597a8.
>
> So, the 1.0 is already part of the version string, and the 0. is yet
> another piece of arbitrary, unreliable information added by us and our
> conventions this time.

We use revision and commits to distinguish versions from plain ones, to
say : "be careful, we didn't package the exact 1.0 release". In this
particular case, the "-0.f1597a8" suffix in the version field would
bring no valuable information: we're packaging the exact 1.0 release.

Of course, you need to refer to the commit hash in the package
definition, since upstream didn't tag its initial release. I'm
advocating for removing that information from the version field only.
We're already doing this for projects that do not tag releases. See,
e.g., `emacs-inspector'.

Regards,

Previous Next

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