Michael Jennings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-03-02 14:49]: > You are not making changes to all packages at once. Thus you have > created a situation where there may be a "release" of a particular > package in which nothing whatsoever has changed from the previous > "release." I don't see this as a good thing, and it's no better than > CVS snapshots.
ACK. > While saving yourself some work, you've created a metric fuck-ton of > work for those of us doing packaging. What you *should* do, IMHO, is > put someone in charge of Release Management. If one or more packages > are at a stable point for a release of some type, let the release > manager worry about version number changes and such. > > These are separate packages. Not everything should be released all at > once, particularly when nothing has changed from the last release. > Trying to treat them all as one big unit defeats the purpose of having > things split out into libraries. ACK. > Furthermore, adding .NNN to the end doesn't create a versioning scheme > that's any more or less consistent than before (except for the 3 > packages erroneously using _preXX). The only thing it accomplishes is > tagging everything with the same suffix, and by using the same suffix > for disparate packages, you've rendered it completely useless. No > useful information is gained from .001 or .002 other than that .002 is > a bigger number. Anything or nothing may have changed for any > particular package, and the unsuspecting user is forced to download > them ALL again even though there may be no difference whatsoever. ACK. > MAJOR.MINOR.PATCHLEVEL is a perfectly reasonable scheme, and when done > properly it provides useful information regarding which packages have > changed and which have not. I can certainly understand what a pain it > can be to manage 18 different packages on your own, but the solution > is not to make it easier for you while making it harder for everyone > else. The solution is to stop making it a one-man show when it's > not. Put a release manager (shadoi? dj2? digitalfallout?) in charge > of the packages you "own," and let the maintainers of other packages > (RbdPngn for EWL, HandyAndE for engage, xcomp/atmos for entrance, > etc.) do their own releases. ACK. I'll happily help out. > And brainstorm things before you take unilateral action, at least when > it comes to packaging and such. There's a chance somebody might have > a different/better/cleaner idea. ACK. -- Regards, Tilman ------------------------------------------------------- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
