On Saturday 03 December 2011 15:58:21 Paul Wise wrote: > On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 7:42 PM, Dmitry Smirnov wrote: > > Thanks for handy advice. It may be nice to use tags for versioning, > > but I'd like to keep translated-to-date version because it is > > human-readable and meaningful. > > "2.0" doesn't say much and I'm not sure what to do if minor update to > > upstream repository will not be tagged. > > > > Shall we keep version with date please? > > Of course I'll change it as advised if you insist. > > All version numbers are meaningless, I just find it a bit strange to > use a different version number to what upstream uses. Using git > describe will give you the closest to what upstream uses. > > You are the maintainer of the package though, so the version number is > your decision. Should I upload as-is or do you want to switch it to > the upstream version number?
Please upload as is. Current version number combine upstream tag and the date of upstream commit (which I think is not too difficult to notice) so it is immediately visible when upstream was active last time. Having said this, I admit the elegance of what you suggested so I might be using tag-based versioning for some other packages. Cheers, Dmitry.
