Re: [mlmmj] Mlmmj 1.2.18a1 released

[Lukas Fleischer <mlmmj@cryptocrack.de>]

On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 11:14:26PM +1100, Ben Schmidt wrote:
> On 13/03/12 6:16 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> >On 03/13/2012 01:30 AM, Ben Schmidt wrote:
> >>An alpha release for the upcoming Mlmmj 1.2.18 has been published.

Works fine so far. Didn't notice any regression.

> >
> >Hi!
> >
> >Why suddenly changing versioning scheme?
> 
> I didn't realise I changed anything.
> 
> >Does the "a" means alpha?
> 
> Yes, A is for alpha. Followed by B for beta, and RC for release
> candidate. That's the system in my head, anyway.
> 
> >Later, if you publish 1.2.18.0, it's going to be considered smaller
> >than 1.2.18a1, so I think it's not a nice numbering scheme
> 
> Well, that depends how you sort, doesn't it? What I've used is a fairly
> common numbering system that a lot of packages use, so it wouldn't
> surprise me if many sorting algorithms for version numbers dealt with it
> OK. A simple ASCII sort won't though, it's true.

Yeah, this is used by several projects and shouldn't cause any
trouble... It works under Arch Linux (pacman, which uses a version
comparison algorithm ripped off from RPM):

    $ vercmp 1.2.17.0 1.2.18.0
    -1
    $ vercmp 1.2.18.0a1 1.2.18.0
    -1

> 
> >(it might break upgrading in Debian, for example).
> 
> I'm not sure that an alpha release should be included in a distribution
> anyway, to be honest.
> 
> >Something like:
> >
> >1.2.18.0.rc1
> >
> >would have been better. Then, you would release 1.2.18.1 ...

Works as well but looks kind of weird, imho:

    $ vercmp 1.2.18.0.rc1 1.2.18.1
    -1

> 
> I guess I probably should have had a hyphen in there, that's all.
> 1.2.18-a1 would be better, right? I'll do that for beta and beyond.

Many distributions use hyphens for pkgrels/patches:

    $ vercmp 1.2.18.0-a1 1.2.18.0
    0

Feel free to use that anyway, it's your decision :)

> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Ben.
> 
> 
>