Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2021 09:58:34 -0600 From: Kyle Evans <kevans@freebsd.org> To: Emmanuel Vadot <manu@bidouilliste.com> Cc: Kyle Evans <kevans@freebsd.org>, Renato Botelho <garga@freebsd.org>, src-committers <src-committers@freebsd.org>, dev-commits-src-all@freebsd.org, dev-commits-src-main@freebsd.org Subject: Re: git: aef769614f92 - main - pkgbase: differentiate package versions for ALPHA/BETA/PRERELEASE/RC phases Message-ID: <CACNAnaH3d9KTF=wU0EgQHgaHnA3p7N=B=mHkxCDrPJEJxLn_cg@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20210114164848.607e82e8f1612cb504b0a64f@bidouilliste.com> References: <202101141300.10ED0JiX032299@gitrepo.freebsd.org> <41f18274-d3c7-409e-5e47-4722c024e994@FreeBSD.org> <20210114160150.1c929cd2e9beceecf182184f@bidouilliste.com> <CACNAnaGWHQV77L1wJv47etACZA%2BL_gHGOOg8Z%2BimMuVVQ9%2Bd3A@mail.gmail.com> <CACNAnaFwAPusz1zx6nRRmTeOL7c89=h0XgdgyYo_T8LHcLmZug@mail.gmail.com> <20210114164848.607e82e8f1612cb504b0a64f@bidouilliste.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 9:48 AM Emmanuel Vadot <manu@bidouilliste.com> wrote: > > On Thu, 14 Jan 2021 09:44:22 -0600 > Kyle Evans <kevans@freebsd.org> wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 9:41 AM Kyle Evans <kevans@freebsd.org> wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 9:02 AM Emmanuel Vadot <manu@bidouilliste.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thu, 14 Jan 2021 11:59:25 -0300 > > > > Renato Botelho <garga@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 14/01/21 10:00, Emmanuel Vadot wrote: > > > > > > The branch main has been updated by manu: > > > > > > > > > > > > URL: https://cgit.FreeBSD.org/src/commit/?id=aef769614f921660cb0262412426034cf5395ae5 > > > > > > > > > > > > commit aef769614f921660cb0262412426034cf5395ae5 > > > > > > Author: Emmanuel Vadot <manu@FreeBSD.org> > > > > > > AuthorDate: 2021-01-14 12:56:38 +0000 > > > > > > Commit: Emmanuel Vadot <manu@FreeBSD.org> > > > > > > CommitDate: 2021-01-14 13:00:04 +0000 > > > > > > > > > > > > pkgbase: differentiate package versions for ALPHA/BETA/PRERELEASE/RC phases > > > > > > > > > > > > The current postfix conversions are: > > > > > > > > > > > > CURRENT / STABLE -> .sYYYYMMDDhhmmss > > > > > > ALPHAx -> .ax, so 11.3-ALPHA1 becomes 11.3.a1 > > > > > > BETAx -> .bx, so 12.1-BETA2 becomes 12.1.b2 > > > > > > RCx -> .rcx, so 13.0-RC3 becomes 13.0.rc3 > > > > > > PRERELEASE -> .p, so 11.3-PRERELEASE becomes 11.3.p > > > > > > RELEASE -> (nothing), so 12.1-RELEASE becomes 12.1 > > > > > > > > > > Wouldn't it be necessary to add timestamp information on PRERELEASE as > > > > > done on CURRENT/STABLE ? > > > > > > > > Yes it would, this wasn't one of the reason for the revert but it was > > > > brough to me after. > > > > -STABLE should always be .sYYYYMMDDhhmmss even when in the PRERELEASE > > > > phase. > > > > > > I had a chance to play with it a little bit, and my proposal is: > > > > > > 1.) Drop -PRERELEASE as a non-CURRENT/STABLE versioning scheme in the > > > pkg versions > > > 2.) Use .plYYYYMMDDhhmmss instead of .sYYYYMMDDhhmmss for > > > CURRENT/STABLE (.pl sorts before all others in the pkg version scheme > > > quite intentionally) > > > 3.) Reinstate all of the others as committed here > > > > > > This basically works; it's a little kludgy during a release process up > > > until the version on -STABLE is bumped up to the next minor if you're > > > trying to hop off an alpha/beta/rc back to stable, but I think that's > > > acceptable. It's a narrow window in which your slide over to -STABLE > > > is considered a downgrade since it gets bumped promptly at the > > > conclusion of the release cycle. > > > > > > root@viper:~/pkg/libpkg# pkg version -t 13.0.a1 13.0.b1 > > > < > > > root@viper:~/pkg/libpkg# pkg version -t 13.0.b1 13.0.rc1 > > > < > > > root@viper:~/pkg/libpkg# pkg version -t 13.0.rc1 13.0 > > > < > > > > I omitted the first step, which is arguably the most important one: > > > > root@viper:~/pkg/libpkg# pkg version -t 13.0.pl2021011313063 13.0.a1 > > < > > Seems good to me, now if only I knew what 'pl' stands for that would > be good :) > Can you do a patch or should I ? > Phew, I'm glad I'm not the only one. :-) I'm going to call it "(pl)aceholder," but I hadn't seen any indication of its actual meaning when it arrived back in '04 (https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56961) I'll whip up a patch later today. Thanks, Kyle Evans
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CACNAnaH3d9KTF=wU0EgQHgaHnA3p7N=B=mHkxCDrPJEJxLn_cg>