kicad-developers team mailing list archive

[Nick Østergaard <oe.nick@xxxxxxxxx>]

An option could be to prepend the branch name via something like:
git symbolic-ref -q --short HEAD

To the git describe --long we already have.

On Tue, 9 Jul 2019 at 21:57, Nick Østergaard <oe.nick@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I have a hard time to understand how  5.99 is better to describe a
> development version. 6.00 was already a bad way to describe it. People
> also were confused. To me .99 seems very arbitrary. Why not .1234?
>
> On Mon, 8 Jul 2019 at 23:20, Eeli Kaikkonen <eeli.kaikkonen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > ma 8. heinäk. 2019 klo 23.47 Nick Østergaard (oe.nick@xxxxxxxxx) kirjoitti:
> >>
> >> How is a number like 99 being any better than the latest release tag?
> >>
> >
> > Did you read the original post, about the current problem? What is the "latest release tag"? 5.1.0 or 5.1.2? Number like 5.99 is unambiguous (and more clearly points to the next number, 6.0). Like this, my other suggestions were that the latest or the next release tag wouldn't be used at all for development versions. The reason is that it would be clear and unambiguous for all possible purposes.
> >
> > To add to the original suggestion: -dev ending could be added to make it even more clear that it's a development version, but can it create problems for Linux or other package numbering schemes? Probably not, 5.99.0-dev is smaller than 5.99.1-dev if 5.99-dev would be used for a release candidate. I wouldn't like using 5.99.0 and then 6.0-rc1 because in alphabetical order 6.0 comes before 6.0-rc1. Therefore 5.99.0, 5.99.1 etc. would be the easiest and least ambiguous solution.
> >
> > Eeli Kaikkonen
> > _______________________________________________
> > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> > Post to     : kicad-developers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> > More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp