Re: Dealing with rolling release versioning

2015-12-05 Thread Kevin Kofler
Reindl Harald wrote: > to make that clear > > Version: > Release: MMDD.1%{?dist} > > where the .1 is the typical usage of Release This should actually be: Release: 1.MMDD%{?dist} as per the guidelines. Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Dealing with rolling release versioning

2015-12-01 Thread Matthew Miller
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 02:38:10PM -0500, Jaroslav Skarvada wrote: > they now use 'daily-MMDD' as the version, it is even shown in the > about dialog. They provide daily builds. It doesn't seem they are > going to change this release model in the near future (but I will > recheck with them).

Dealing with rolling release versioning

2015-11-30 Thread Richard Shaw
I have a project that stopped providing versioned releases and went to a rolling release model using the date. In this case these are not "pre" or "post" releases or snapshot releases. Is there any reason not to use the date as the version? It's in MMDD format so there shouldn't be a upgrade

Re: Dealing with rolling release versioning

2015-11-30 Thread Richard Shaw
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Till Maas wrote: > On Mo, Nov 30, 2015 at 11:28:57 -0600, Richard Shaw wrote: > > > Is there any reason not to use the date as the version? It's in MMDD > > format so there shouldn't be a upgrade path issue but this isn't > explicitly >

Re: Dealing with rolling release versioning

2015-11-30 Thread Reindl Harald
Am 30.11.2015 um 18:58 schrieb Till Maas: On Mo, Nov 30, 2015 at 11:28:57 -0600, Richard Shaw wrote: Is there any reason not to use the date as the version? It's in MMDD format so there shouldn't be a upgrade path issue but this isn't explicitly covered in the packaging guidelines that I

Re: Dealing with rolling release versioning

2015-11-30 Thread Till Maas
On Mo, Nov 30, 2015 at 11:28:57 -0600, Richard Shaw wrote: > Is there any reason not to use the date as the version? It's in MMDD > format so there shouldn't be a upgrade path issue but this isn't explicitly > covered in the packaging guidelines that I can find. If you make it as a post

Re: Dealing with rolling release versioning

2015-11-30 Thread Jaroslav Skarvada
- Original Message - > On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Till Maas < opensou...@till.name > wrote: > > > On Mo, Nov 30, 2015 at 11:28:57 -0600, Richard Shaw wrote: > > > Is there any reason not to use the date as the version? It's in MMDD > > format so there shouldn't be a upgrade