GitHub is a terrible upstream

[Adam Williamson]

On Wed, 2012-06-13 at 20:10 +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-06-13 at 11:45 -0600, Pete Zaitcev wrote:
> > On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 14:08:05 -0600
> > Orion Poplawski <orion at cora.nwra.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > %global commit bd245c9
> > > 
> > > Source0: 
> > >
> > https://github.com/jukka/pcfi/tarball/%{commit}/jukka-pcfi-%{commit}.tar.gz
> > > 
> > > %setup -q -n jukka-pcfi-%{commit}
> > 
> > I do not understand how this is supposed to work in the face of
> > "yum update". 
> 
> But if you read his email carefully, Orion isn't speaking about the
> version.
> So commit will be bd245c9 but the version might very well be
> 
> Version: 20120613git%{commit}
> 
> and as long as the date gets updated, yum will be happy with it.

The guidelines actually require an integer before the date/rcs rev part,
which should be incremented at every build. Like so:

1.20110102git9e88d7e
2.20110102git9e88d7e
3.20120201git8fg34f6
4.20120201git8fg34f6

It doesn't get reset when you bump the snapshot, to double-plus-ensure
that no mess in the snapshot bit of the tag can ever cause problems.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net