Re: per-version hints proposal

[Marco Atzeri <marco.atzeri@gmail.com>]

On 21/06/2016 16:28, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Jun 21 15:49, Marco Atzeri wrote:
>>
>> On 21/06/2016 14:03, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>> On Jun 20 16:28, Jon Turney wrote:
>>>>
>
>>
>>> Ideally we wouldn't need something like "prev" at all since the version
>>> number itself is sufficient to specify what's curr and what's old.
>>>
>>> As for test, IMHO it would make sense to specify "this is a test
>>> release" right in the cygport file.  This in turn could create a
>>> per-version hint with a test marker which is evaluated by calm
>>> accordingly.  For instance, the name of the file could take over this
>>> role.  Or even better, the package version number itself.
>>>
>>> This would have an additional benefit:  We couldn't just move a package
>>> from test to curr, it would have to be explicitely rebuilt as non-test
>>> release.
>>
>> not a huge fan of this.
>> The last time we made the perl transition we put a lot of package in
>> test as temporary solution. Rebuild all just to change a label
>> seems a waste of time.
>
> Not a huge fan of what part?  I think in general it makes sense to
> keep the "test" info in the ${version}.hint file.  If a simple
> change to this file moves ${version} to non-test, ok with me.

changing ${version}.hint is fine also for me.

Rebuilding packages not ;-)

>
>
> Corinna
>