[Please upload] Re: Fwd: [ITP] varnish-2.1.4-1 and varnish-r5665

David Sastre d.sastre.medina@gmail.com
Tue Jan 11 07:51:00 GMT 2011

2011/1/11, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 07:23:45AM +0100, David Sastre wrote:
>>On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 07:57:23PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 08:34:03PM +0100, David Sastre wrote:
>>> >OK. Please bump the cygwin package release number when you do that.
>>> Why bump the package release on something that has never been released?
>>> I think it makes sense that the first release should be -1.
>>That's what I understand from:
>>2.?Do increase the version number no matter what (if upstream
>>version didn't change, bump the Cygwin release number): even if the
>>package was bad, even if it was removed from the server for
>>a security issue, even if has only been discussed in mailing
>>list and never uploaded: it costs nothing and avoids confusion
>>in both setup.exe and people mind.
> The package was never on the server, i.e., it was never released.  If
> a package ever touches cygwin.com then, yes, you have to bump the
> version any time you make any change no matter how tiny.
> I don't care if the package is released with -57 release number but I
> don't want it to get into the common knowledge pool that it is a
> requirement because it isn't.

Duly noted. Thanks for the clarification.

More information about the Cygwin-apps mailing list