[Libreoffice-qa] New Bugzilla Version Picker items – 2
pmladek at suse.cz
Tue Jun 12 00:53:56 PDT 2012
On Fri, 2012-06-08 at 17:13 +0200, Thomas Klausner wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 03:45:11PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > 4. Ubuntu/Debian:
> > -----------------
> > + 3.X.Y~alphaZ - for alpha releases
> > + 3.X.Y~betaZ - for beta releases
> > + 3.X.Y.Z - for release candidates
> > I really like this solution. It seems to have everything. We just need
> > to make sure that the tilda '~' is handled correctly and does not break
> > some tools.
> Why is the ~ necessary? Just do
> + 3.X.YalphaZ - for alpha releases
> + 3.X.YbetaZ - for beta releases
> + 3.X.Y.Z - for release candidates
Good point! It works for RPM as well. The trick is that we add the .Z
for release candidates.
(My mind was closed against this solution because alpha/beta strings
always caused troubles for rpm. Though, the other projects did not
add .Z. They used 3.X.Y for the final release and the sorting was
> And to answer your question for pkgsrc: it knows about "alpha", "beta"
> and "rc" and sorts them correctly.
The problem is that RPM does not handle them and we need a
OK, we have two promising solutions that support good sorting:
A. Thomas's approach:
+ 3.X.YalphaZ - for alpha releases
+ 3.X.YbetaZ - for beta releases
+ 3.X.Y.Z - for release candidates
* more user friendly
* is it possible to use it for versioning dlls on Windows?
B. Current approach:
+ 3.X-1.98.Z - for 3.X.0 alpha releases, e.g. 22.214.171.124
+ 3.X-1.99.Z - for 3.X.0 beta releases, e.g. 126.96.36.199
+ 3.X.Y.Z - for 3.release candidates, e.g. 188.8.131.52
* it is easier to parse in scripts
* might be confusing for normal users
* need user friendly explanation in about dialog, bugzilla
I prefer the solution A if it does not break windows or MAC or other
stuff. I would like to try it for 3.6.0-beta2 tags and source tarballs
if nobody is against it.
More information about the Libreoffice-qa