On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 07:11:14PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > On 04.06.2007 18:56, Axel Thimm wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 06:20:12PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > >> On 04.06.2007 18:10, Axel Thimm wrote: > >>> On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 11:27:18AM -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > >>>> On Monday 04 June 2007 11:20:47 Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > >>>>> The idea to use ".1" as disstag for devel (discusses weeks ago) still > >>>>> stands. > >>>>> The idea in short: x.1 is higher then x.fc7 and avoid the confusion if a > >>>>> package doesn't get rebuild during a devel cycle; and if there later is > >>>>> a update after releases x simply gets increased -- so there would no > >>>>> need to got for "x.2". > >>>>> I can outline the idea further if anybody is interested. > >>>> I'm really really against playing games with dist tags like this. Just for > >>>> the record. > >>> And it's just replacing .fc8, .fc9 with .1, .2, not really > >>> helpful. Not to mention that it breaks all dotted releases. > >> No. As I wrote (and you quoted it; see above): "so there would no > >> need to got for "x.2". > > You either have F9 go ".2" (if F8 is ".1") or you would had killed the > > usefulness of disttags altogether, so either way it's broken. > > No, you don't have to. It can stay at ".1" forever; if you update > something for devel and/or a release distribution just increase the > portion left of the disttag -- that's what we do in any case. which is just the same as not having any disttags at all and led to the pain before the disttag. > /me more and more gets the feeling people don't understand what I'm up > to; of I'm really missing something here. /me thinks you should just fast forward to F9 and try to submit a package with your model to see what's wrong. /me also thinks you should start testing release ids of "1.1" vs "1" to id some more flaws in this. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpRsTdBRii8j.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- Fedora-maintainers mailing list Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers
-- Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
