Le jeudi 9 juin 2011 11:05:16, Colin Guthrie a écrit : > 'Twas brillig, and Ahmad Samir at 08/06/11 22:48 did gyre and gimble: > > On 8 June 2011 23:38, Stew Benedict <[email protected]> wrote: > >> If you're going to rebuild *after* QA, you've just invalidated your QA. > >> (yeah, I know it *should* be the same, but stuff happens) > > > > You're right (even if that's never happened for 3-4 years in mdv, > > since sec team rebuilt the packages when pushing to */updates IIRC). > > Personally, and this might just be me, I always submit my packages to > *testing with a subrel of 0.1, 0.2 0.3 etc etc. Users then test my > various iterations. When I'm happy and when it's ready to pass to QA, I > set the subrel to 1. This way the final version that should hit updates > is nice and neat. > > In an ideal world, QA would validate it for me then change the subrel > for me. That process would require a rebuild. > > I'm not sure what others feel about this? It's not impossible to just do > this as a matter of course as part of the process we go through and > increment subrel to a round number before handing over to QA... although > maybe I'm just a bit too anal about neat version numbers :p >
Neat version numbers are great, so I like your way of doing updates :) Samuel
