Le jeudi 9 juin 2011 11:05:16, Colin Guthrie a écrit :

> 'Twas brillig, and Ahmad Samir at 08/06/11 22:48 did gyre and gimble:

> > On 8 June 2011 23:38, Stew Benedict <stewbintn@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> If you're going to rebuild *after* QA, you've just invalidated your QA.

> >> (yeah, I know it *should* be the same, but stuff happens)

> >

> > You're right (even if that's never happened for 3-4 years in mdv,

> > since sec team rebuilt the packages when pushing to */updates IIRC).

>

> Personally, and this might just be me, I always submit my packages to

> *testing with a subrel of 0.1, 0.2 0.3 etc etc. Users then test my

> various iterations. When I'm happy and when it's ready to pass to QA, I

> set the subrel to 1. This way the final version that should hit updates

> is nice and neat.

>

> In an ideal world, QA would validate it for me then change the subrel

> for me. That process would require a rebuild.

>

> I'm not sure what others feel about this? It's not impossible to just do

> this as a matter of course as part of the process we go through and

> increment subrel to a round number before handing over to QA... although

> maybe I'm just a bit too anal about neat version numbers :p

>

Neat version numbers are great, so I like your way of doing updates :)

Samuel