Thread: Problem with debian package version number
Dear all, I did a big mistake when I began to number debian packages... I versioned them like this : pgadmin3-x.y.z-YYYYMMDD.w where x.y.z is the pgadmin3 version number, YYYYMMDD is the snapshot tag and w is a minor release number for the package. As this is unofficial packages, I should have numbered the packages at least like this : pgadmin3-x.y.z-0.YYYYMMDD.w This rule is better to handle future official release where the package release number is greater or equal to "1". What are you planning to do concerning the pgAdmin3 version number for the beta release ? Will this stay 0.8.0 ? Or will this become something else greater than 0.8.0 (would be nice...) ? Does someone has an idea of the date this release is planned ? Thanks all and sorry for this BIG mistake... Raphaël
Raphaël Enrici wrote: > Dear all, > > I did a big mistake when I began to number debian packages... > I versioned them like this : > pgadmin3-x.y.z-YYYYMMDD.w > where x.y.z is the pgadmin3 version number, YYYYMMDD is the snapshot > tag and w is a minor release number for the package. > As this is unofficial packages, I should have numbered the packages at > least like this : > pgadmin3-x.y.z-0.YYYYMMDD.w > This rule is better to handle future official release where the > package release number is greater or equal to "1". > > What are you planning to do concerning the pgAdmin3 version number for > the beta release ? > Will this stay 0.8.0 ? Or will this become something else greater than > 0.8.0 (would be nice...) ? Does someone has an idea of the date this > release is planned ? > > Thanks all and sorry for this BIG mistake... Hi Raphaël, so far we don't have an agreed schema of numbering, so this is the right moment to make proposals and decide. IMHO, the first beta will be 0.90, following development versions 0.91, the second beta 0.92, ... Regards, Andreas
Andreas Pflug wrote: > Raphaël Enrici wrote: > >> I did a big mistake when I began to number debian packages... >> What are you planning to do concerning the pgAdmin3 version number >> for the beta release ? >> Will this stay 0.8.0 ? Or will this become something else greater >> than 0.8.0 (would be nice...) ? Does someone has an idea of the date >> this release is planned ? > > Hi Raphaël, > so far we don't have an agreed schema of numbering, so this is the > right moment to make proposals and decide. > IMHO, the first beta will be 0.90, following development versions > 0.91, the second beta 0.92, ... Hi Andreas, it sounds good to me and will allow me to handle a better package version numbering. I've also looked to some other versionning schemes (mozilla's one for example) but don't like them. Par numbers for quite stable release and odd number for development ones has worked nice for long on other projects. What would be the better way to handle the case of 0.98 if not sufficient enough ? May be we can add some rc1, rc2, rc3 for release candidates before final 1.0 ? Another question: as far as I remember Dave planned to suppress YYYYMMDD tag from these releases' sources, is it still in the air ? Cheers, Raphaël
> -----Original Message----- > From: Raphaël Enrici [mailto:blacknoz@club-internet.fr] > Sent: 04 August 2003 21:14 > To: Andreas Pflug > Cc: pgadmin-hackers@postgresql.org; Dave Page > Subject: Re: [pgadmin-hackers] Problem with debian package > version number > > > Andreas Pflug wrote: > > > Raphaël Enrici wrote: > > > >> I did a big mistake when I began to number debian packages... What > >> are you planning to do concerning the pgAdmin3 version > number for the > >> beta release ? Will this stay 0.8.0 ? Or will this become > something > >> else greater than 0.8.0 (would be nice...) ? Does someone > has an idea > >> of the date this release is planned ? > > > > Hi Raphaël, > > so far we don't have an agreed schema of numbering, so this is the > > right moment to make proposals and decide. > > IMHO, the first beta will be 0.90, following development versions > > 0.91, the second beta 0.92, ... > I was intending to follow the pga2 convention: 0.9.0 beta 1 0.9.1 beta 1 dev 1 0.9.2 beta 1 dev 2 ... 0.9.14 beta 2 and so on. We then release 1.0.0. 1.0.1 is refresh 1 of 1.0 1.1.x is the new development branch that will become 1.2.x at release, thus odd minor versions are development, and evenare stable. Regards, Dave
Dave Page wrote: >I was intending to follow the pga2 convention: >0.9.0 beta 1 >0.9.1 beta 1 dev 1 >0.9.2 beta 1 dev 2 >.... >0.9.14 beta 2 >and so on. We then release 1.0.0. >1.0.1 is refresh 1 of 1.0 >1.1.x is the new development branch that will become 1.2.x at release, thus odd minor versions are development, and evenare stable. > > Nice! I vote for this one :) Something that has less to do with version number but which is quite important to me: ./pkg/debian/make-deb is missing from snapshots, can one of you do the magic trick that will make it appear ? Is there also anyway that ./pkg/debian/rules is set mode 755 out of the box ? Cheers, Raphaël P.S. Hey Dave, I love your bike! ;p
Raphaël Enrici wrote: > Dave Page wrote: > >> I was intending to follow the pga2 convention: >> 0.9.0 beta 1 >> 0.9.1 beta 1 dev 1 >> 0.9.2 beta 1 dev 2 >> .... >> 0.9.14 beta 2 > I don't think we need to number each between-betas version. We have Betas, which will get their own number, and to distinct non-beta (internal ongoing-work versions) from this they get additional numbers. so we have 0.9.0 beta-1 0.9.1 ongoing work 0.9.2 beta-2 0.9.3 more fixing ... 0.9.6 RC1 0.9.7 minor fixes 0.9.8 RC2 0.9.9 more minor fixes 0.9.10 RC3 0.9.11 even less fixes .... >> >> and so on. We then release 1.0.0. >> 1.0.1 is refresh 1 of 1.0 >> 1.1.x is the new development branch that will become 1.2.x at >> release, thus odd minor versions are development, and even are stable. > Ok. Regards, Andreas