Re: Changing version scheme for the evolution projects

2022-10-23 Thread Sasa Ostrouska via desktop-devel-list
On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 7:55 AM Milan Crha via desktop-devel-list wrote: > > On Mon, 2022-09-19 at 08:21 +0200, Milan Crha via desktop-devel-list > wrote: > > Maybe. > > Hi, > just to close this thread with a conclusion: there had been multiple > opinions (I received some also as private

Re: Changing version scheme for the evolution projects

2022-10-20 Thread Milan Crha via desktop-devel-list
On Mon, 2022-09-19 at 08:21 +0200, Milan Crha via desktop-devel-list wrote: > Maybe. Hi, just to close this thread with a conclusion: there had been multiple opinions (I received some also as private responses), and because I do not have any strong reason for the change and the most

Re: Changing version scheme for the evolution projects

2022-09-19 Thread Kalev Lember via desktop-devel-list
On 9/16/22 16:03, Jeremy Bicha via desktop-devel-list wrote: I think we could save everyone some work by just making the tilde style official instead of periods for pre-releases. Yes, I agree, I think it would make a lot of sense to use tildes for pre-releases upstream. -- Kalev

Re: Changing version scheme for the evolution projects

2022-09-19 Thread Jeremy Bicha via desktop-devel-list
On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 9:41 AM Michael Catanzaro wrote: > In contrast, everyone knows how to handle alpha/beta/rc and knows what > they mean. Just use tildes instead of periods in the appstream metadata > (43~alpha, etc.) Debian and its derivatives have a similar problem with the GNOME 40 style

Re: Changing version scheme for the evolution projects

2022-09-19 Thread Milan Crha via desktop-devel-list
On Fri, 2022-09-16 at 08:41 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > I'm glad you're phasing it out, but doing something > different from the rest of GNOME is inherently confusing. Hi, I think any change is always confusing at the start. My idea behind x.y.0.90 is that the tweak number being so

Re: Changing version scheme for the evolution projects

2022-09-16 Thread Jeremy Bicha via desktop-devel-list
On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 10:43 AM Michael Catanzaro wrote: > On Fri, Sep 16 2022 at 04:16:33 PM +0200, Jan Alexander Steffens via > desktop-devel-list wrote: > > Arch changes prerelease versions as well, but we have to remove the > > period (40.rc -> 40rc) so that it orders before 40 or 40.0. > >

Re: Changing version scheme for the evolution projects

2022-09-16 Thread Michael Catanzaro
On Fri, Sep 16 2022 at 04:16:33 PM +0200, Jan Alexander Steffens via desktop-devel-list wrote: Arch changes prerelease versions as well, but we have to remove the period (40.rc -> 40rc) so that it orders before 40 or 40.0. A tilde is handled the same as a period and would not help us. Oh,

Re: Changing version scheme for the evolution projects

2022-09-16 Thread Michael Catanzaro
On Fri, Sep 16 2022 at 10:03:49 AM -0400, Jeremy Bicha wrote: I think we could save everyone some work by just making the tilde style official instead of periods for pre-releases. That sounds good to me. I like the tilde better anyway. ___

Re: Changing version scheme for the evolution projects

2022-09-16 Thread Jan Alexander Steffens via desktop-devel-list
On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 4:08 PM Jeremy Bicha via desktop-devel-list < desktop-devel-list@gnome.org> wrote: > Resending since my previous email went to the moderation queue. > > On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 9:41 AM Michael Catanzaro > wrote: > > In contrast, everyone knows how to handle alpha/beta/rc

Re: Changing version scheme for the evolution projects

2022-09-16 Thread Jeremy Bicha via desktop-devel-list
Resending since my previous email went to the moderation queue. On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 9:41 AM Michael Catanzaro wrote: > In contrast, everyone knows how to handle alpha/beta/rc and knows what > they mean. Just use tildes instead of periods in the appstream metadata > (43~alpha, etc.) Debian

Re: Changing version scheme for the evolution projects

2022-09-16 Thread Michael Catanzaro
On Fri, Sep 16 2022 at 07:41:10 AM +0200, Milan Crha via desktop-devel-list wrote: 3.47.0.90 ... GNOME's .alpha 3.47.0.91 ... GNOME's .beta 3.47.0.92 ... GNOME's .rc ... here's a gap for urgent development releases up to .99 3.47.1... GNOME's .0, aka the