On 11/2/06, Andy Whitcroft <apw@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Santi Béjar wrote: > One problem I see with this scheme (either 'g', 'git' of '+') is that > it does not provide an increasing version number, even for > fast-forwarding commits. Then it is not useful as a package version > number (deb or rpm). I've already seen deb packages with > version+git20061010. One possibility could be to add the number of > commits between the tag and the commit as: > > v1.4.3.3-git12g1e1f76e > > to provide a weak ordering for fast-forwarding commits. What do you thing? I think you'll restart the 1.2.3.4 versioning is better 'debate' again!
Sorry, I don't undestand this.
Surly if things are being pushed into a .deb or .rpm we should be using a real release version. We should be tagging that. If the project is not providing release number, there is nothing stopping you from tagging them yourself in your copy of the repository and using your tag. you could use like 'unofficial-N' where N increments in the way you want.
And where do you store this tag? It is an upstream commit and you just refer to this. With the unofficial-N there is no way to know which upstream commit you are refering without having access to the git repository of the packager . Santi - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html