Le 14 août 07 à 22:01, Juan Manuel Palacios a écrit :
On Aug 14, 2007, at 9:44 AM, Blair Zajac wrote:
Why are we calling it 1.5.11, I would think it would be 1.5.2, or 1.5.1.1 (not as good).
Blair
I wanted to emphasize it's a very small and specific bug fixing release, which is why I chose 1.5.11 over 1.5.2. But the truth of the matter is that we don't really have a coherent and standardized versioning scheme yet and until now we've mostly just played it by ear.
I wanted to introduce more strict versioning rules at one point, but my plans were in a way tied to the versioning of the PortSystem clause in our Portfiles, in order to be able to say a given port requires a certain MacPorts release to work. But unfortunately that's still unimplemented, there are still many loose ends that need Q&A.
And as a side (but relevant) note, notice that our version number is really just a floating point number (as defined by base/config/ mp_version) that we simply interpret in the more common x.y.z way, so that gives some more leeway there. I would, however, love to switch our practice to the common software versioning scheme, but that implies using the internal rpm-vercomp function in the selfupdate proc in macports1.0 (which currently only does a simple $old_version < $new_version? mathematical comparison). That's a future project of mine, but if anyone is interested in beating me to it, then by all means! ;-)
So, in a nutshell, I could go either way with 1.5.2 or 1.5.11, whatever people prefer. I would just love to know the final status of the mtree validation feature to asses if I should release *now* or wait for some further debugging/developments. Markus...?
I guess setting the deadline for tomorrow morning (GMT -4) is not too drastic... Regards,...
-jmpp
PS: I just noticed that the sole introduction of rpm-vercomp in selfupdate, to be able to use the x.y.z version format, would itself place some stricter rules on our versioning practices. We humans would recognize that 1.5.11 is a very small release only meant to correct very specific errors in 1.5.1, and therefore we would easily if not immediately realize (I believe) that 1.5.2 is a progression over the former... but not so in rpm-vercomp's words: 11 < 2 is *not* true in anyone's book, neither in rpm-vercomp's ;-) Anyone wanting to work on this should take a time to propose some versioning guidelines and discuss them openly for general adoption.
I would say that I, human, don't recognize that .11 is less than .2 when it come to versioning. The dots are here for something, and numbers should be take separately. /me votes for 1.5.1.1! -- Anthony Ramine, the infamous MacPorts Trac slave. nox@macports.org