[postgis-devel] autobuild cleanup - version revisited

Tue Sep 23 11:07:44 PDT 2008

That looks really cool, leaves no room for confusion, and makes us look really important. 

Although would
that cause problems with our build since we use that in the docs to infer
the tars and stuff (or we would continue using the rest of the version for that).

Actually that's more along the lines of how SQL Server does it.
I'm running

SQL Server 9.00.3042.00 (X64)  

In case anyone cares.

I suspect that .3042 maps to some repository version number.  I think those
extra 00s at the end denote whether you are running enterprise, standard or something.

Wonder how oracle does it.

-----Original Message-----
From: postgis-devel-bounces at postgis.refractions.net on behalf of Paul Ramsey
Sent: Tue 9/23/2008 1:49 PM
To: PostGIS Development Discussion
Subject: Re: [postgis-devel] autobuild cleanup - version revisited

Let's get fancy and do $Id substitution :)

1.4.svn-r21943

On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 10:44 AM, Chris Hodgson
<chodgson at refractions.net> wrote:
> That doesn't solve the problem of being able to tell the difference between
> installs of 1.4.0 from svn and of the 1.4.0 release version, which I think
> is the major complaint we have about not having the svn or -dev suffix. I do
> like the suffix approach as opposed to re-using the micro version... since
> it's nice to be able to tell the difference between micro versions that were
> taken from svn, too.
>
> Chris
>
> Kevin Neufeld wrote:
>>
>> Then, what if the 1.3 branch is tagged as 1.3.SVN and trunk is left as
>> 1.4.0
>>
>> Paul Ramsey wrote:
>>>
>>> I really can't recall. I think I might have just been aping mapserver,
>>> which simply increments its versions in trunk when releases are
>>> tagged, so that mapserver 5.4 already "exists", though only as trunk.
>>>
>>> P.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 6:49 AM, Obe, Regina <robe.dnd at cityofboston.gov>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Paul,
>>>>
>>>> Nudge Nudge - you have any opinion on this or do we have your blessing
>>>> to put the SVN back in the version numbers of 1.3.4 and 1.4.
>>>>
>>>> Will the sky fall?  Do we just need to change POSTGIS_MICRO_VERSION or
>>>> are there other changes to prevent things from breaking?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Regina
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: postgis-devel-bounces at postgis.refractions.net
>>>> [mailto:postgis-devel-bounces at postgis.refractions.net] On Behalf Of Obe,
>>>> Regina
>>>> Sent: Monday, September 15, 2008 6:57 AM
>>>> To: PostGIS Development Discussion
>>>> Subject: RE: [postgis-devel] autobuild cleanup
>>>>
>>>> Mark,
>>>> Sorry for the long-windedness (I was hoping to rank higher on dramatic
>>>> effect :).
>>>>
>>>> Is it just the Version.config that controls that and would we put SVN as
>>>> part of the
>>>> POSTGIS_MICRO_VERSION.  Although I vote to wait for Paul's opinion since
>>>> I assume he had some reason for doing that and perhaps have him do it.
>>>> Guess he doesn't get up until later in the day.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Regina
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: postgis-devel-bounces at postgis.refractions.net
>>>> [mailto:postgis-devel-bounces at postgis.refractions.net] On Behalf Of Mark
>>>> Cave-Ayland
>>>> Sent: Monday, September 15, 2008 5:46 AM
>>>> To: PostGIS Development Discussion
>>>> Subject: Re: [postgis-devel] autobuild cleanup
>>>>
>>>> Obe, Regina wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Me too.  Very important. While I think we should encourage users
>>>>> (somewhat) to test out and use 1.3.4 before released, I think its
>>>>> important they understand it is a moving (but somewhat stable target).
>>>>>
>>>>> I think we should put the SVN back in the version 1.3.4 until actually
>>>>> released.  It was annoying me a bit that I don't see it in my
>>>>> postgis_full_version() output and was worried what if I forget to
>>>>> upgrade to the new one (or compile against my old source) when it is
>>>>> released, how would I be able to tell the difference?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Regina
>>>>
>>>> I think that was exactly the point I was trying to make (but in a less
>>>> long-winded fashion!). Does anyone still have any objections to adding
>>>> the SVN suffix back into the SVN branches? If not, Regina, would you
>>>> like to add them back in?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ATB,
>>>>
>>>> Mark.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Mark Cave-Ayland
>>>> Sirius Corporation - The Open Source Experts
>>>> http://www.siriusit.co.uk
>>>> T: +44 870 608 0063
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> postgis-devel mailing list
>>>> postgis-devel at postgis.refractions.net
>>>> http://postgis.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/postgis-devel
>>>> -----------------------------------------
>>>> The substance of this message, including any attachments, may be
>>>> confidential, legally privileged and/or exempt from disclosure
>>>> pursuant to Massachusetts law. It is intended
>>>> solely for the addressee. If you received this in error, please
>>>> contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> postgis-devel mailing list
>>>> postgis-devel at postgis.refractions.net
>>>> http://postgis.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/postgis-devel
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> postgis-devel mailing list
>>>> postgis-devel at postgis.refractions.net
>>>> http://postgis.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/postgis-devel
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> postgis-devel mailing list
>>> postgis-devel at postgis.refractions.net
>>> http://postgis.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/postgis-devel
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> postgis-devel mailing list
>> postgis-devel at postgis.refractions.net
>> http://postgis.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/postgis-devel
>
> _______________________________________________
> postgis-devel mailing list
> postgis-devel at postgis.refractions.net
> http://postgis.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/postgis-devel
>
_______________________________________________
postgis-devel mailing list
postgis-devel at postgis.refractions.net
http://postgis.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/postgis-devel

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/postgis-devel/attachments/20080923/7b244e71/attachment.html>