On 09/23/2016 01:27 PM, Niels de Vos wrote: > On Fri Sep 23 19:08:44 2016 GMT+0200, Kaleb S. KEITHLEY wrote: >> On 09/23/2016 01:05 PM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 10:31 PM, Kaleb S. KEITHLEY <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> <top post> >>> If there's another RC, please follow the naming convention that we >>> agreed on in the dim, distant past of 3.9.0rcX. >>> >>> Note the .0 in there. >>> >>> 3.9rcX (without the .0) is mildly annoying from a packaging perspective. >>> >>> And be sure that the GA is tagged and released as 3.9.0. >>> >>> We do have a history of using both 3.9rcX and 3.9.0rcX in the past. But >>> please stick to the One True convention of 3.9.0rcX. >>> >>> >>> We tried to keep it as close as possible to 3.8 >>> v3.8rc0 >>> v3.8rc1 >>> v3.8rc2 >>> v3.9rc0 >>> v3.9rc1 >>> ... >>> >> >> Yes, that was annoying then too. >> >> >>> Do you want this to be changed in future? >> >> Yes please. > > Whatever is picked, make sure that the 3.9.0 version is seen as newer. You > can use the rpmdev-vercmp command to verify that. >
If I end up building 3.9rc1 packages, that's the easy part. RC packages are glusterfs-3.9.0-0.XrcY. Final packages are glusterfs-3.9.0-1. But this is such a nuisance I'm probably not going to even bother. -- Kaleb _______________________________________________ packaging mailing list [email protected] http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
