kicad-developers team mailing list archive

[Garth Corral <gcorral@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Oct 20, 2014, at 10:15 AM, Nick Østergaard <oe.nick@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 2014-10-20 19:00 GMT+02:00 Garth Corral <gcorral@xxxxxxxxx>:
>> I agree with all points here, with one exception and one caveat.
>> 
>> The exception is that it will not work well with git (not an issue here).  Git commit IDs are not ordered and trying to use them as versions is a world of pain.  You’ll just have to trust me on that.
>> 
>> The caveat is that if you’re going to use that third place for the commit numbers you have to be certain that you’re never going to need it for a patch release. E.g., 2.1 slips out with that nasty crasher and you need 2.2.1 to fix it.  Otherwise you add a small bit of confusion.  Which is why I suggested the 4th number in my original email, which could accommodate the commit number as suggested here.
> 
> Well I would not describe this as a caveant or problem. In my
> suggestion it is only 2.1 (or 2.1.0 if we choose a triplet for relase
> versions) that is the version, while the vcs version is just for
> convience. And should probably not be seen in the package manager. I
> know that a tag upstream should serve this purpose. But let this git
> discussion end with this period.
> 
Well, all of this is irrelevant as Wayne has indicated that he’s going with just the commit number for nightly builds, also a fine way to go.  

However, I just want to highlight that my two points above were not related to one another.  The git thing and the version were separate points, with the second one having nothing to do with git and everything to do with whether you choose 2 or 3 numbers for the version.

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature