On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 05:42:11PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 25. 02. 20 9:50, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > >Upgrade path may be problematic if you update Fn to a version in less commit > >than the update for Fn-1 (ie: you update F32 to 1.0 in 1 commit and update F31 > >to 1.0 in 2 commits, suddenly you have F32 with 1.0-1 and F31 with 1.0-2). > > I don't consider that an issue. It's not super elegant, but since we > do distro-sync on upgrades, it shuld be fine. Hmm, I don't do distro-sync and in general I think upgrade path is something that should be preserved. What about doing <name>-<version>-<dist>.<commits-since-version-bump>? This means that upgrade path not affected by the number of commits or builds in the older release. The numbers <commits-since-version-bump> in different branches cannot be meaningfully compared. Those numbers only make sense in the context of a specific branch, so they should be ordered after <dist>. Zbyszek _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
