This is the mail archive of the cygwin-apps@cygwin.com mailing list for the Cygwin project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: xerces-c, xerces-c-devel, xerces-c-doc 2.1.0-2 available for review/upload


On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 03:11:44PM +0100, Pavel Tsekov wrote:
>
>
>On 6 Nov 2002, Robert Collins wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 2002-11-06 at 01:01, Pavel Tsekov wrote:
>> > On 6 Nov 2002, Robert Collins wrote:
>> >
>> > > Consider this: if the test copy we review was -3, and you approve that
>> > > version, you should not rename it to -1, else when -2 comes out, all the
>> > > testers will fail to upgrade. So -3 in review, stays as -3 when
>> > > uploading. Likewise, updating -1 to -2 to -3 during the review process
>> > > allows the testers to update properly. Does that make sense?
>> >
>> > Ok, but if one releases a new Cygwin package shouldn't it get -1, which
>> > will make it first Cygwin release of this package ? And I'm under the
>> > impression that xerces is a new package :)
>>
>> No, it should get *a* number that will then monotonically increase
>> within the same vendor version number.
>
>Ok, I've just checked the package naming conventions to refresh my
>memory. Check this:
>
>http://cygwin.com/setup.html#naming
>
>Maybe it should be updated.

I don't recall people bumping the -x numbers previously.  I don't see
why that's necessary.  Theoretically, we are a small enough and
intelligent enough group that we won't be confused when the contents of
a file are updated without updating the file version.

I think, in general, a new cygwin package should start out with a -1.
It's hardly worth starting a long discussion about but, IMO, the -x
numbers are incremented when there is a new cygwin release not when
someone is providing packages for review.

cgf


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]