[Gc] RE: GC version numbering

Petter Urkedal urkedal at nbi.dk
Sun May 20 23:28:14 PDT 2012

On 2012-05-20, Ivan Maidanski wrote:
> Sun, 20 May 2012 04:40:24 +0000 "Boehm, Hans" <hans.boehm at hp.com>:
> > > From: Ivan Maidanski [mailto:ivmai at mail.ru]
> > > For gc-7.2 (+ the fix) alternatives are:
> > > 1. don't alter anything, just do "make dist" and rename tarball to gc-7.2-
> > > 201205DD or to gc-7.2.1 or gc-7.2b, or even to gc-7.2.10 (be greater than any
> > > alpha released) 2. same as above plus alter version in Readme and configure
> > > to 7.2.1 (or 7.2.10 or 7.2-201205DD) 3. same as above plus just add
> > > GC_VERSION_MICRO (set to 1 or 10) to gc_version.h.
> > > 
> > > What do you prefer (for exactly this hot fix)?
> > I would probably  just call it revision B in the file name and readme file, and not reflect the change in any of the macros, i.e. something between your option 1 and 2.  I'm not sure I would even change configure or the file name.
> Like this (and name tarball as gc-7.2-rev-b.tar.gz), right? - https://github.com/ivmai/bdwgc/commit/866424d9abcc042d698d5ba32efdfe98b279a083

I think it would be nice if the tar revisions are also valid revisions
for common packaging systems.  E.g. RPM uses the dash to separate the
software version from the package revision (which indicates patches and
changes to packaging).  I think gc-7.2b is ok from RPM's point of view,
but I'm not sure how it sorts compared to gc-7.2.1.

More information about the Gc mailing list