On Sunday, 22 November 2015 at 00:46, Sérgio Basto wrote: > On Sex, 2015-11-20 at 15:18 +0100, Tomas Mraz wrote: > > On Čt, 2015-11-19 at 20:59 +0000, Sérgio Basto wrote: > > > On Qua, 2015-11-18 at 17:11 -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > > > > > > > > > "SB" == Sérgio Basto <sergio@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > > > > > SB> When we fix the .spec and don't change the source, we bump > > > > rightmost > > > > SB> version, when we change the source, we bump the left version, > > > > so > > > > we > > > > SB> can distinguish when we update the source and when we updated > > > > the > > > > SB> .spec, this contrast for me is important. > > > > > > > > For me, the simple rule that a Release: tag less than 1 implies > > > > prerelease software, while a Release: tag of 1 or greater implies > > > > a > > > > post-release package, is important. So far the proponents of > > > > this > > > > change haven't shown what things would actually look like after > > > > this > > > > change, so it's hard for me to come up with a reason to change my > > > > opinion. > > > > > > prerelease numbering can't begin with 0 and increased to 0.1 > > > because : > > > > > > next version of foo-0.b would be foo-0.1.b and "b">1 > > > > Nope, 1>"b" in rpm version compare. Even so, we shouldn't depend on upstream preserving sorting order in their pre-release suffixes. Numerical sorting is always monotonous. > If so, we could begging numeration with 0 for pre-release: > > foo-0.c -> foo-0.c.1 -> foo-0.1.b -> foo-0.1.b.1 -> foo-0.2.a -> foo- > 0.2.a.1 I don't understand why you want to introduce another level of numbering. What's wrong with the current guideline? Regards, Dominik -- Fedora http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Rathann RPMFusion http://rpmfusion.org "Faith manages." -- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:"Confessions and Lamentations" -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
