Re: Pending packages status

[Charles Wilson <cwilson at ece dot gatech dot edu>]

Igor Pechtchanski wrote:

> > Worse, my pretest versions of libtool are based on *different* CVS
> > snapshots.  So they differ not only in REL, but also in VER, from the
> > packages on the cygwin mirrors.
>
>
> Umm, Chuck, the above suggestion was intended only for different
> pre-releases of the package with the *same* VER number.  If you have
> different VER numbers, you already have a way of distinguishing various
> pre-releases, and no need to do anything extra to that end.

True -- but I brought it up simply to emphasize that the "problem space" 
is larger than I sensed was being considered. I wanted to head off the 
argument that pre-releases (or pretests) following a given version be 
numbered using tags to the preceeding release.

e.g. foo-1.3.2-3 is official

Somebody was SURE to suggest that pretests for -4 be named 
"foo-1.3.2-3a" -3b, -3c, etc.

so, I was trying to point out the problem THAT naming scheme runs into 
when I'm working on pre-release versions of foo-1.3.3.  Should they 
follow the -1.3.2-3X rule (since they 'succeed' 1.3.2-3), or the -0.x 
rule (since they will precede the first official release of 1.3.3)?

BLECH. *Yet another amendment to the rule*.  All because it's too 
difficult to write rules that cover every conceivable case.  Sometimes, 
it's okay to just say "Rules?  We don' need no steenking rules!"  and 
just tell folks to use their brains.  As cgf says, maintainers are 
supposed be a cut above, and should be able to handle these issues in 
the way most appropriate for THEIR package. [Yes, I also recognize the 
political implications of this statement; you *don't* want to get me 
started on that.  I might start quoting the Federalist papers and George 
Washington's farewell address -- and nobody wants that; incl. me.  I've 
got real work to do...]

Heck, they might use one method for their foo package, and a different 
method for their baz package.  Fine by me -- as long as it makes sense.

I'm sorry I didn't fully explain what I was trying to get across with 
that libool-DATE paragraph; I had hoped the problems would be clear by 
implication, so I wasn't explicit.  I should have been.

> FWIW, I think the practice of naming the initial releases -1 is related to
> the absense of release notes for packages in setup.  If there were a way
> to access the release notes (or the announcement, which should amount to
> the same thing), it wouldn't matter what the release number is.  This is
> more than just a "so patch setup" issue, since there is no connection
> currently between upset/setup and the announcements.

Well, that's a whole 'nother issue.  I have some ideas, but they involve 
upset changes AND setup changes AND automated monitoring of 
cygwin-announce.  Icky stuff which I have no intention of coding, so 
I'll just shut up now.

--Chuck