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

David Sastre d.sastre.medina@gmail.com
Tue Jan 11 12:31:00 GMT 2011

2011/1/11, jdzstz - gmail dot com :
> 2011/1/11 David Sastre :
>> 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.
> Do you want to renumber the packages to varnish-xxx-1  or  I keep
> actual name "varnish-xxx-5"??
> The only problem with rename is that old messages in cygwin-apps
> mailist can confuse in the future.

Let's keep it. Thanks.

More information about the Cygwin-apps mailing list