[repo-coord] [HEADS-UP] Re: Versioning proposal, please comment (was: disttag -- repotag)

[Dag Wieers]

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004, Thomas Vander Stichele wrote:

> On Tue, 2004-05-25 at 13:39, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > please comment on this, I believe that a common versioning scheme is
> > important. It can't be that difficult to formulate an acceptable
> > implementation. ;)
> > 
> > I think it all turns around defining acceptable disttags, the rest is
> > more or less straightened out by now. I think the "fc" and "el"
> > disttags are liked by everybody, one needs to have a
> > smaller-than-"fc1" disttag for RHL releases, which could be the
> > proposed "fc0.".
> 
> FYI, fedora.us went with .1 and .2 for FC1 and FC2.  So no fc.
> 
> I can't recall/care to lookup why this was chosen over fc1 or fc2.

Freshrpms, Dries and I have settled for the following convention:

	0.el2
	0.rh7
	0.rh8
	0.rh9
	1.el3
	1.fc1
	1.fc2
	1.fc3
	2.el4
	2.fc4

So that we do not depend on name-changes and that we have an upgrade path 
from fc to el. This means that for every new Enterprise release (which is 
about every 18 to 24 months) will have an increment. I expect this to be 
at least 10 years from now and lots of things will have changed by then. ;)

We also have 0.yd2 and 0.yd3 for Yellow Dog Linux 2 and 3 and may have a 
similar convention for cAos when it arrives.

--   dag wieers,  dag at wieers.com,  http://dag.wieers.com/   --
[Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors]