[Mageia-dev] [Mageia-sysadm] [496] update version in Makefile

Thu Feb 10 21:24:16 CET 2011

Op donderdag 10 februari 2011 19:57:08 schreef Dexter Morgan:
+> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 7:35 PM, Maarten Vanraes
+> 
+> <maarten.vanraes at gmail.com> wrote:
+> > Op donderdag 10 februari 2011 10:34:48 schreef Samuel Verschelde:
+> >> Le jeudi 10 février 2011 10:15:59, Thierry Vignaud a écrit :
+> >> > On 9 February 2011 21:52,  <root at mageia.org> wrote:
+> >> > > update version in Makefile
+> >> > > 
+> >> > > Modified Paths
+> >> > > 
+> >> > > drakx/trunk/advertising/Makefile
+> >> > > 
+> >> > > Modified: drakx/trunk/advertising/Makefile
+> >> > > ===================================================================
+> >> > > --- drakx/trunk/advertising/Makefile      2011-02-09 20:24:08 UTC
+> >> > > (rev 495) +++ drakx/trunk/advertising/Makefile      2011-02-09
+> >> > > 20:52:01 UTC (rev 496) @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
+> >> > > -VERSION = 2011.0
+> >> > > +VERSION = 1
+> >> > > 
+> >> > >  PRODUCT = drakx-installer-advertising
+> >> > 
+> >> > I don't know if that has already been discussed somewhere (at least
+> >> > I didn't remember it), since the "year.month" scheme is widely used
+> >> > (mandriva, ubuntu, phoronix, ...), why not stick with it?
+> >> > 
+> >> > on the other hand, "traditionnal" versioning is used by FC, Debian so
+> >> > I don't have strong opinion about any of these.
+> >> > WDYT?
+> >> 
+> >> I saw no public discussion about it (maybe in a meeting for which I
+> >> didn't read the logs). I like having the year in release version, but I
+> >> infered from what I saw that version 1 seems to be what has been
+> >> chosen. However, that may be to late to discuss since the alpha is due
+> >> in 5 days from now.
+> >> 
+> >> Samuel
+> > 
+> > i was under the opinion that people said "Release 1" as a temporary
+> > measure, until the discussion had been settled...
+> > 
+> > i too prefer the year in the release, makes it easier to remember.
+> 
+> i hardly see how this is easier to remember.
+> I really like the way fedora does F14, F15, ...
+> 
+> 
+> but this is just my opinion :)
+
+well, tbf, will it be ok to have F143 in the future? it seems a bit ... 
+languish ... to me.
+