[lxc-devel] LXC 0.9.alpha1 pull request

[Frederic Crozat]

Le mardi 11 décembre 2012 à 09:56 -0500, Stéphane Graber a écrit :
> On 12/11/2012 09:35 AM, Frederic Crozat wrote:
> > Le mardi 11 décembre 2012 à 09:23 -0500, Stéphane Graber a écrit :
> >> On 12/11/2012 05:12 AM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> >>> On 12/10/2012 11:36 PM, Stéphane Graber wrote:
> >>>> Hi Daniel,
> >>>>
> >>>> You'll find the 0.9.alpha1 pull request below.
> >>>>
> >>>> Based on what you had to do last time in Copenhagen, I believe the
> >>>> following actions are to be done on your side:
> >>>>
> >>>>  - Properly tag 0.8, currently we only have a commit but no matching
> >>>>    tag, this should be fixed before pulling from staging.
> >>>
> >>> I just forgot to push the tags, it is on my local tree. I am not able to
> >>> push the tree right now because there is an issue on sourceforge with
> >>> the owners of the git tree. I opened a ticket for that.
> >>
> >> Ok, let's hope they'll fix it soon.
> >>
> >>>>  - Review the pull request
> >>>>  - Use "git pull --edit --no-ff --stat git://github.com/lxc/lxc.git",
> >>>>    that should do a real merge, letting you do a proper Sign-off of the
> >>>>    changes.
> >>>>  - Update the version number to 0.9.alpha1 (the version number format
> >>>>    is to avoid breaking RPM based distros)
> >>>
> >>> Why 0.9.alpha1 and not 0.9.0-rc1 ?
> >>
> >> So, the reason for the dotted version number is that apparently dashes
> >> break the rpm magic...
> >>
> >> Now as for alpha vs rc, I tend to consider rc as being feature frozen,
> >> which isn't quite the case with what we have in staging.
> >> We're still planning a bunch more API changes and config file
> >> reorganisation before considering it feature complete.
> >>
> >> However, you're perfectly correct that I forgot a .0 in the version
> >> number :)
> >>
> >> So my guess is that we'll end up doing something like:
> >> 0.9.0.alpha1 - December
> >> 0.9.0.alpha2 - February
> >> 0.9.0.rc1    - March
> >> ... as many rc as needed to fix any major issue
> >> 0.9.0
> > 
> > it will break anyway RPM, because 0.9.0 is a smaller string than
> > 0.9.0.r1 (we can workaround that with "recent" RPM version).
> > 
> > I would suggest 0.8.99 instead, if you really want to go this way..
> 
> I'd rather not go with that kind of "ugly" version numbers
> (for lack of better words).
> 
> I'm really not familiar with RPM but don't you have something like the
> magic ~ in Debian packages version numbers (where 0.8.0~rc1 is lower
> than 0.8.0)?
> And also, do you absolutely need to extract the version number from the
> configure.ac?
> 
> For the Debian/Ubuntu packages, we just set the version number to
> whatever we want before we upload, basically replacing the upstream "-"
> or final "." by the magic "~".

Yes, RPM gained support for "~" recently (which is what I was referring
by workaround).

In that case, I'd suggest to release as 0.9.0~alpha1 (and not with a
dot :)

-- 
Frederic Crozat <fcrozat at suse.com>
SUSE