[ANNOUNCEMENT] Updated: dash 0.5.11.5

[Brian Inglis]

On 2021-09-21 14:04, Jon Turney wrote:
> On 21/09/2021 20:20, Ken Brown via Cygwin-apps wrote:
>> [Redirected from the main cygwin list.]
>>
>> On 9/21/2021 3:12 PM, Ken Brown via Cygwin wrote:
>>> On 9/21/2021 1:55 PM, Brian Inglis via Cygwin wrote:
>>>> On 2021-09-21 10:58, Ken Brown via Cygwin wrote:
>>>>> On 9/21/2021 11:29 AM, Brian Inglis wrote:
>>>>>> so suggest we mandate release 0 for test versions, as that would 
>>>>>> follow naturally.
>>>>>
>>>>> There's no need for that.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe it would be a good suggestion then?
> 
> Release numbers starting with 0 already have a defined meaning.
> 
> They are to be used for upstream pre-release versions
> 
> e.g pkg-1.0-0.1.g12345678 is a pre-release of pkg 1.0, since this sorts 
> before pkg-1.0-1
> 
> See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Versioning_Examples, included 
> by reference in https://cygwin.com/packaging-package-files.html, for 
> some more examples.

Thanks for that pointer and link, but the examples are simple with 
uniform version levels and random strings ordered using sequential 
prefixes.

The upstream bison test versions I was trying while working on some test 
config problems with bison 3.8/3.8.1 e.g.
bison-3.8.1.27-dd6e.tar.xz, bison-3.8.1.29-5c106.tar.xz should they be
3.8.1.27-0.1.dd6e, 3.8.1.29-0.1.5c106 or
3.8.1-0.27.dd6e, 3.8.1-0.29.5c106 or even
3.8.1-0.1.27.dd6e, 3.8.1-0.2.29.5c106 ?

For these multi-level versions, is ls -v or sort -V definitive for 
Cygwin versions, or some other sort?

>>  From my point of view as a maintainer, there are two main reasons I 
>> use test releases.
>>
>> 1. For a package in which I'm also an upstream contributor (like Emacs 
>> or TeX Live or Cygwin), I might want to make a test release of an 
>> upcoming upstream release to catch bugs prior to the release.  I 
>> generally use release numbers like 0.1, 0.2,... for these.
>>
>> 2. If there's a new upstream release of a package that I'm less 
>> familiar with, I just want to make a standard release, but I might not 
>> be confident that there's no breakage on Cygwin.  So I start with a 
>> test release (with release number 1), and if no problems are reported 
>> after a few weeks I untest it, keeping the release number unchanged.
> 
> Yeah.  Brian's suggestion doesn't always work in this case.
> 
> If we wanted to a test release of pkg after pkg-1.0-5, without any 
> upstream changes, it would be pkg-1.0-6, we can't reset the release to 0.
> 
>> I personally wouldn't have any use for a release number 0 in either case.

Makes sense.

-- 
Take care. Thanks, Brian Inglis, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

This email may be disturbing to some readers as it contains
too much technical detail. Reader discretion is advised.
[Data in binary units and prefixes, physical quantities in SI.]