Subject: Re: Versions and uname output
To: Lubomir Sedlacik <salo@Xtrmntr.org>
From: Todd Vierling <email@example.com>
Date: 06/10/2003 13:35:58
On Tue, 10 Jun 2003, Lubomir Sedlacik wrote:
: this sounds reasonable on the first time but it doesn't cover all
: possible scenarios. imagine some crucial fix after RELEASE which is
: pulled up along with the _STABLE name change.
Then it's certainly *not* feasible to match on _STABLE, because someone very
well could be using a source tree before this "crucial fix", which is *also*
named _STABLE. How do you know which _STABLE is in use?
: also, what about _ALPHA, _BETA, _RCn? do you want to strip them too?
: the pattern i suggested covers them too.
These are slightly different, mind you, in that _STABLE is tacked onto the
prior version number, and the above are tacked onto the following version
1.6.1_STABLE <-- still named "1.6.1_*"
1.6.2_ALPHA* <-- now named "1.6.2_*"
Make sure the pattern you plan to propose works properly given the above.
-- Todd Vierling <firstname.lastname@example.org>