[lxc-devel] LXC 0.9.alpha1 pull request

[Stéphane Graber]

On 12/11/2012 10:07 AM, Frederic Crozat wrote:
> 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 :)


Alright, so let's go with 0.9.0~alpha1 then as that matches what Debian
and Ubuntu were going to use anyway and if the new rpm supports it too,
then that's just perfect.

For distros where that doesn't work, I suppose it's easy enough to patch
just that bit, so shouldn't be a big deal.

-- 
Stéphane Graber
Ubuntu developer
http://www.ubuntu.com

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 899 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.linuxcontainers.org/pipermail/lxc-devel/attachments/20121211/abfab65c/attachment.pgp>