On 03/12/2012 04:56 PM, Allan McRae wrote: > On 13/03/12 05:22, Matthew Monaco wrote: >> On 03/12/2012 01:13 PM, Dave Reisner wrote: >>> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 12:53:11PM -0600, dgbale...@0x01b.net wrote: >>>> From: Matthew Monaco <matthew.mon...@0x01b.net> >>>> >>>> Rather than prioritizing an arbitrary VCS, collect all development >>>> directives. If there is more than one, use the package name as a hint. >>>> If that doesn't work, abort. >>>> --- >>> >>> I'm not really sure I understand the need for this. In what use case >>> are multiple VCS definitions needed? >>> >> >> I've only seen multiples when a project is transitioning to a new system. >> Either >> way, I think that splitting the check for the which vcs is being used and >> setting the new version might be useful. >> > > I do not understand this argument. I have never seen a project > transitioning from one VCS to another in such a way that you had to use > both VCS systems to get the source. If that happens, you probably have > two different projects managed by the same people and should have two > packages. >
It wasn't the point of the change; just a potential scenario given when asked. I was in the function and figured Murphy's Law indicated at some point someone was going to do something funny. The real change that I'm after is that a package has to be named appropriately to get an automatic version bump by default. > >
