[ARGUS] Argus release strategy (and version numbering scheme) (longish)

[John Nagro]

Andrew,

Thanks so much for your work on the debian package. I cant express to
you how valuable things like packages are, and i know you put in a lot
of effort so the world can have them. I do have one addition for you.
The current debian package for this doesnt contain the perl tools that
are in the support directory of the tar ball. Would you be willing to
include those? even as a seperate package?

Thanks!

-John

On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 06:31:37 +1000, Andrew Pollock
<andrew-argus at andrew.net.au> wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 08:50:07AM -0400, Carter Bullard wrote:
> > Hey Andrew,
> >    You've definitely made a good case that its broken,
> > so lets fix it.  I don't have a scheme in mind, so if
> > you've got a strategy that works, lets adopt it!!!!
> >
> >    I was hoping that 2.0.6 was done, frozen, finished,
> > etc.... and that we would be moving on to whatever new
> > number was next, but I haven't 'announced' it officially, so
> > I think we have an opportunity to go ahead and specify a
> > system and use 2.0.6[whatever] as the guinea pig.  If
> > it's an even odd thing that would be fine, if its another
> > extension, that's cool.  Preferably one that has some
> > legs in the real world.
> >
> >    My desire is that we can build packages like tar'z,
> > rpm's etc easily.   I have no idea (sorry about that)
> > what Debian likes, but hopefully whatever we decide on
> > can accommodate many of the popular packaging strategies.
> >
> 
> Daily builds works fine for Debian. Debian releases a stable version once in
> a blue moon, so as long as I can get a respectable version of argus and
> argus-clients into that stable release, I'm happy...
> 
> Mike Slifcak pointed out the "standard" version numbering scheme. This
> certainly works fine for version number comparison purposes...
> 
> So maybe what you might like to do is make all the alpha/beta versions of
> 2.0.7 work torwards a 2.1 release? Or maybe the next production release is
> called 2.2? I don't have strong views on what the actual version number is,
> just so long as when compared, a newer version looks newer than an older
> version.
> 
> regards
> 
> Andrew
>