Proposal to add additional annotated tags

[Florian Weimer]

On 10/16/2017 09:15 PM, Carlos O'Donell wrote:

>> Should I use .90 in the tags and not .9000?  I'm asking because
>>
>> -#define RELEASE "stable"
>> -#define VERSION "2.26"
>> +#define RELEASE "development"
>> +#define VERSION "2.26.90"
>>
>> we use .90 versions during development.  (I mistakenly assumed that
>> this was something Fedora-specific.)  I switched to .9000 to avoid
>> collisions with point-release tarballs from a long-lived release
>> branch branch.
> 
> Why don't we change VERSION to 2.26.9000 to make the tags match?
> 
> The choice of .90 was always arbitrary.
> 
> I see nothing but benefit in using a larger development revision
> number.

Testing showed no problems caused by .9000.  I'm going to install the 
attached patch.

I will use .90 tags for the older development branches, and the .9000 
tag for the new branch only.

Thanks,
Florian
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: version.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 405 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://sourceware.org/pipermail/libc-alpha/attachments/20171016/4f861b20/attachment.bin>