Re: [Dovecot] pigeonhole: naming and versioning
Axel Thimm wrote: How about using a version scheme starting with 2.0? If there is a pigeonhole for each 2.0.x release, then dovecot-2.0.x.tar.bz2 dovecot-pigeonhole-2.0.x.tar.bz2 could be the released pairs. That's the problem. Timo and I do not release new versions synchronously. Only when Timo happens to break Pigeonhole with a Dovecot change, I tend to do a forced release. Regards, Stephan.
Re: [Dovecot] pigeonhole: naming and versioning
On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 12:09:27PM +0200, Stephan Bosch wrote: Axel Thimm wrote: As a (downstream) packager I have some questions: a) pigeonhole is called a working title - will the final release be called something else like dovecot-sieve again? Well, I was a bit uncertain about the name. People who don't know what a pigeonhole is or what the verb means (especially the Dutch), sometimes have `interesting' associations with that name. I am quite confident though that this name is the definitive one. I'll adjust the website accordingly. :) b) The versioning seems to go from 0.1.15 to 0.1.13. From a packager's POV it would be better to allow a natural version upgrade path. Perhaps the version in hg is just not updated? The reason for these questions/clarifications are that Angel and I are packaging dovecot 2.x betas and matching sieve plugins for allowing more people to a broader testing before the projects go gold. We'd like to have proper naming and versioning in place already for the beta packages. The Pigeonhole project is not released for v2.0 yet, so there is no version for v2.0. Current plans are to call name the packages dovecot-2.0-pigeonhole-0.2.0. However, this versioning scheme is not ideal, so ideas are welcome. How about using a version scheme starting with 2.0? If there is a pigeonhole for each 2.0.x release, then dovecot-2.0.x.tar.bz2 dovecot-pigeonhole-2.0.x.tar.bz2 could be the released pairs. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net pgpm5GS9pMlOg.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [Dovecot] pigeonhole: naming and versioning
Axel Thimm wrote: As a (downstream) packager I have some questions: a) pigeonhole is called a working title - will the final release be called something else like dovecot-sieve again? Well, I was a bit uncertain about the name. People who don't know what a pigeonhole is or what the verb means (especially the Dutch), sometimes have `interesting' associations with that name. I am quite confident though that this name is the definitive one. I'll adjust the website accordingly. b) The versioning seems to go from 0.1.15 to 0.1.13. From a packager's POV it would be better to allow a natural version upgrade path. Perhaps the version in hg is just not updated? The reason for these questions/clarifications are that Angel and I are packaging dovecot 2.x betas and matching sieve plugins for allowing more people to a broader testing before the projects go gold. We'd like to have proper naming and versioning in place already for the beta packages. The Pigeonhole project is not released for v2.0 yet, so there is no version for v2.0. Current plans are to call name the packages dovecot-2.0-pigeonhole-0.2.0. However, this versioning scheme is not ideal, so ideas are welcome. Regards, Stephan.
[Dovecot] pigeonhole: naming and versioning
Hi Stephan, many thanks for all the work you do on the new sieve parts to dovecot. As a (downstream) packager I have some questions: a) pigeonhole is called a working title - will the final release be called something else like dovecot-sieve again? b) The versioning seems to go from 0.1.15 to 0.1.13. From a packager's POV it would be better to allow a natural version upgrade path. Perhaps the version in hg is just not updated? The reason for these questions/clarifications are that Angel and I are packaging dovecot 2.x betas and matching sieve plugins for allowing more people to a broader testing before the projects go gold. We'd like to have proper naming and versioning in place already for the beta packages. Thanks! -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net pgpqB7XG6rRST.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [Dovecot] pigeonhole: naming and versioning
On 07/04/10 21:08, Axel Thimm wrote: b) The versioning seems to go from 0.1.15 to 0.1.13. From a packager's POV it would be better to allow a natural version upgrade path. Perhaps the version in hg is just not updated? Since -sieve and -managesieve codebases have been merged, the ideal version number from a packaging POV would be higher than last -managesieve release (0.11.11) to ensure simpler upgrade paths on -managesieve packages. -- Angel Marin http://anmar.eu.org/
Re: [Dovecot] pigeonhole: naming and versioning
On 07/04/10 21:08, Axel Thimm wrote: b) The versioning seems to go from 0.1.15 to 0.1.13. From a packager's POV it would be better to allow a natural version upgrade path. Perhaps the version in hg is just not updated? Since -sieve and -managesieve codebases have been merged, the ideal version number from a packaging POV would be higher than last -managesieve release (0.11.11) to ensure simpler upgrade paths on -managesieve packages. -- Angel Marin http://anmar.eu.org/
