public inbox for cygwin-apps@cygwin.com
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ken Brown <kbrown@cornell.edu>
To: cygwin-apps <cygwin-apps@cygwin.com>
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] Updated: dash 0.5.11.5
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2021 15:20:42 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <33d08934-9b57-e7be-307f-ec6393c8f124@cornell.edu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <67547c41-55c4-743a-1194-3d47bb5562cd@cornell.edu>

[Redirected from the main cygwin list.]

On 9/21/2021 3:12 PM, Ken Brown via Cygwin wrote:
> On 9/21/2021 1:55 PM, Brian Inglis via Cygwin wrote:
>> On 2021-09-21 10:58, Ken Brown via Cygwin wrote:
>>> On 9/21/2021 11:29 AM, Brian Inglis wrote:
>>>> so suggest we mandate release 0 for test versions, as that would follow 
>>>> naturally.
>>>
>>> There's no need for that.
>>
>> Maybe it would be a good suggestion then?

 From my point of view as a maintainer, there are two main reasons I use test 
releases.

1. For a package in which I'm also an upstream contributor (like Emacs or TeX 
Live or Cygwin), I might want to make a test release of an upcoming upstream 
release to catch bugs prior to the release.  I generally use release numbers 
like 0.1, 0.2,... for these.

2. If there's a new upstream release of a package that I'm less familiar with, I 
just want to make a standard release, but I might not be confident that there's 
no breakage on Cygwin.  So I start with a test release (with release number 1), 
and if no problems are reported after a few weeks I untest it, keeping the 
release number unchanged.

I personally wouldn't have any use for a release number 0 in either case.

Ken

       reply	other threads:[~2021-09-21 19:20 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <announce.20210919172710.46999-1-Brian.Inglis@SystematicSW.ab.ca>
     [not found] ` <87ee9j92m0.fsf@Otto.invalid>
     [not found]   ` <6afad1d6-d3ea-7903-151e-e50f6a9a98ab@SystematicSw.ab.ca>
     [not found]     ` <5212e253-7778-f034-d1a9-c4acf0feac40@cornell.edu>
     [not found]       ` <04aa78a5-c925-b04f-52aa-69111b919444@Shaw.ca>
     [not found]         ` <67547c41-55c4-743a-1194-3d47bb5562cd@cornell.edu>
2021-09-21 19:20           ` Ken Brown [this message]
2021-09-21 20:04             ` Jon Turney
2021-09-22  3:30               ` Brian Inglis
2021-09-23 13:36                 ` Jon Turney
2021-09-23 17:08                   ` Brian Inglis

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=33d08934-9b57-e7be-307f-ec6393c8f124@cornell.edu \
    --to=kbrown@cornell.edu \
    --cc=cygwin-apps@cygwin.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).