On Wed, Apr 03, 2024 at 04:29:52PM -0500, J. Lewis Muir wrote: > On 04/03, Greg Troxel wrote: > > Good points, but if upstream is using 2.0.X where X is unix timestamp, > > there is a very strong presumption to just use their numbers, whether or > > not they are aesthetically pleasing. IMHO us departing from > > upstream causes confusion. > > Oops, I misread that then! Sorry, I thought Malte was proposing "2.0.X > where X is unix timestamp" as the new versioning scheme since upstream > had stopped making releases. If upstream is still making releases or > tagging or whatever, then yes, I agree with you, Greg, that it would be > better to match upstream's versioning scheme. Sorry, my phrasing should have been more clear. Upstream uses the 2.0.X versioning where X is the unix timestamp derived from the latest git commit using the command $ git show --no-patch --format=%ct and has .gitattributes set up to automatically include this release version number X in the file .relver in the root of source archives. So they are not tagging releases, but instead they are assigning this release version number to each commit. I don't like the versioning scheme, but I don't think we should change it without a very good reason either. Cheers, -- Malte Dehling
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature