apt-0.5.15lorg3.1-rc2

[Panu Matilainen]

On Tue, 2006-05-16 at 17:31 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-05-16 at 18:21 +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> > Ok, this is now with the filelists fix, no other changes from rc1.
> > Tested to survive fc4 -> fc5 upgrade calculation which is just about as
> > acid as a depsolver test gets :) 
> > 
> > http://apt-rpm.org/testing/apt-0.5.15lorg3.1-rc2.tar.bz2
> > 
> > Please try to give it a spin, I'm planning on putting final lorg3.1 out
> > this weekend unless something dramatic turns up.
> Can we please have a more reasonable version numbering?
> 
> As you might know, chars and "-" in versions are a PITA to handle.

Sure, I'm not particularly in love with the current versioning scheme
and been thinking of doing something about it sooner or later anyway.

-rcX things are one thing, that's mostly just from old habit and can
change to something else, no problemo. 

The more interesting question is the main version number. Currently as
you probably all know, it's supposed to reflect the debian-apt version
we're based on + some extra tagging for the -rpm version. Now, we're not
really following debian apt anymore, there's nothing of interest going
on in there for rpm systems AFAICT and the stuff on roadmap will take us
pretty far away from debian-apt eventually. So, the question is what
random number do we pick :) It needs to be somehow separate from debian
apt - maybe we should rename the tarball to apt-rpm-<version> to make
that point clear, then just pick any old version larger than
0.5.15lorg3.1 from rpm versioning point of view and go on from there.

Another related thing is that I've been thinking about having a stable
and development releases, that's going to need some sort of versioning
scheme as well - for example uneven numbers for devel-releases and even
numbers for (supposedly ;) stable ones. That's at least a widely used
strategy and many people are familiar with it.

One possibility would be bumping up the version to 1.0 for the stable
branch to get out of the silly 0.1.2.3.4.5-land and to make it really
distinct from the debian-apt versioning.

Ideas, thoughts, comments...? I'm all ears on this one :)

	- Panu -