Re: GOP2-2b - Stable 2.16.x releases (dictator) (probable decision)

[David Kastrup]

Graham Percival <address@hidden> writes:

> Hmm.  I can't answer this directly, but I'll pass along my
> considerations:
>
> - if you try to compile GUB on debian unstable (or any other
>   recent distro), you will likely encounter odd compile failures.
>   These are important to fix at some point in time (otherwise we'd
>   be stuck GUB on ubuntu 10.04 only), and require a great deal of
>   knowledge of compilers and searching for solutions online.
>   OTOH, it might just work "out of the box" in which case it'll
>   just take 6-12 hours and then be working.
> - I think that supporting build numbers will be an easier
>   introduction to version number handling in GUB and our docs than
>   jumping straight into 4-tuples.  The first step is to make it
>   work in "make website", which is infinitely easier than trying
>   to do anything in GUB.  This is a relatively easy thing to fix,
>   so it might make sense to leave it for a relative beginner...
>   OTOH, the bug has existed for two years, so might as well tackle
>   it now.  Also, David is quite likely to want to use build
>   numbers if they are available.
>   (whereas I'm happy to say "screw users" or "screw version
>   numbers" and either not bother updating with -2 if there's a
>   serious problem, or else bump to .x+1 one day after a .x
>   release; neither of those options are particularly ideal for a
>   stable branch)

Build numbers are not all that relevant for _us_ as far as I can tell.
They distinguish different versions compiled from the _same_ canonical
source (so they don't belong into our VERSION file at any rate).
Changes may be updates of the dependencies, of the compiling platform,
of the downstream patches.

In our case, they would become relevant only when GUB gets updated and
we require a rerelease from otherwise unchanged sources because of that.

-- 
David Kastrup