nickva commented on pull request #90: URL: https://github.com/apache/couchdb-pkg/pull/90#issuecomment-1031806728
> We don't currently have packaging version numbers parameterized in the code Good point that we don't have package / docker specific versioning. Something like `3.2.1-1` might work. Technically, the Docker image might have it's own `-1`, if we updated any docker specific things (like here https://github.com/apache/couchdb-docker/pull/215#issuecomment-1029998115), and the binary packages might get their own if, say, we bumped Erlang versions, or updated pre/post install scripts. The RPMs could have a `-1` but DEBs might not. Noticed Ubuntu have a similar issue for their package versioning, and they have a scheme like: `A.B.C-XubuntuY` with `A.B.C` is the base version of the package, `X` is the Debian version and `Y` the Ubuntu specific one. > ... create a "3.2.1" branch and a 3.2.1-1 tag with the package numbers bumped off the side of the main branch for now. Just to clarify, that would be 3.2.1 branch off of the 3.2.1 tag not off of the current 3.x? Something like: ``` 3.x ... 3.2.1 [branch][tag] ... 3.2.1-1 [tag] ``` I hope at least after https://github.com/apache/couchdb/pull/3889 is reviewed and merges, and with all improvement like the sharded index server, replicator target re-creation handling, and change feed rewind fixes, we could probably have a good reason to roll out a 3.3 as well. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
