Re: GEP-4 : Versioning and branching rules proposal

[Mark McLoughlin <mark skynet ie>]

Hi Christian,

On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Christian Rose wrote:

> On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> > 	* The 'rules' are too inflexible. For example, if this was
> > adopted and I went to apply the rules to libIDL I would have to create
> > a gnome-2-0 branch and on HEAD change the version from 0.8.0 to
> > 2.1.0.0. Then very regularily after that I would have to keep
> > incrementing the version number, even though its unlikely that a
> > single useful change has been made. Users would continually downloaded
> > the new packages, but for nothing. Lots of hassle and for what? In
> > this case (granted its an extreme case, I think in the last year there
> > has only been asingle significant code change) what does this proposal
> > achieve.
>
> I can think of one reason for incrementing the release number and
> providing new versions of a package even though the code doesn't change --
> new and updated translations. For packages that don't use translations
> this of course doesn't apply, though.

	Oh, don't worry - I consider a translation update enough to
warrant a new release. It just doesn't come into the example above :-)

Good Luck,
Mark.

_______________________________________________
gnome-hackers mailing list
gnome-hackers gnome org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-hackers