[Please upload] Re: Fwd: [ITP] varnish-2.1.4-1 and varnish-r5665
Tue Jan 11 07:21:00 GMT 2011
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 07:23:45AM +0100, David Sastre wrote:
>On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 07:57:23PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 08:34:03PM +0100, David Sastre wrote:
>> >OK. Please bump the cygwin package release number when you do that.
>> Why bump the package release on something that has never been released?
>> I think it makes sense that the first release should be -1.
>That's what I understand from:
>2.?Do increase the version number no matter what (if upstream
>version didn't change, bump the Cygwin release number): even if the
>package was bad, even if it was removed from the server for
>a security issue, even if has only been discussed in mailing
>list and never uploaded: it costs nothing and avoids confusion
>in both setup.exe and people mind.
The package was never on the server, i.e., it was never released. If
a package ever touches cygwin.com then, yes, you have to bump the
version any time you make any change no matter how tiny.
I don't care if the package is released with -57 release number but I
don't want it to get into the common knowledge pool that it is a
requirement because it isn't.
More information about the Cygwin-apps