Versioning svn checkouts [Was: Re: alpha/beta software in Fedora 8?]

[Petr Machata]

Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> Petr Machata wrote:
>> And maybe I fail to see the
>> intent behind using the date in release tag of vcs-checkouted package.
>> Perhaps it's just an arbitrary identifier.  But if the intent is
>> anything close to making a life easier for whoever reconstructs the
>> srpm, using the release number makes more sense than the date alone.
>>
> After much discussion of exactly this point, the Packaging Committee
> decided that the date/revision id in release tag is not for
> reconstructing the srpm.  It's for consumers of the rpm to have a better
> idea of what they're getting.  For all vcs's a date is good for this as
> it tells the user they're getting a snapshot from a certain date.  For
> svn, and distributed vcs's that have an incrementing release number on a
> canonical branch the release number can be useful for those that are
> following upstream.  For vcs's that have only hash based ids there's
> really no reason to have the hash in the rpm release tag.

Thanks for clarification, that makes sense.  Interestingly enough, and
quite contrary to your argument, naming guidelines allow the release ID
or partial hash to be appended to the date portion of the release tag.

> -Toshio

PM

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20071130/ca6c34c1/attachment-0002.bin