Default revision of 1

[Kevin Van Vechten]

I'm saying revisions should be interpreted as they are in Subversion  
-- monotonically increasing serial numbers.  You can't agree with me  
_and_ want to "leave space for development".  Trying to arbitrarily  
pick revision numbers, encode special significance into them, and  
avoid collisions with other developers is fraught with peril.   
Revision numbers indicate that something about the Portfile has  
changed aside from the name and version.  The decision as to what's  
development or what's stable needs to be made out of band with  
respect to revision numbers.  Again, using Subversion as an analogy,  
that's what tags/branches are for.

- Kevin

On Oct 10, 2006, at 12:54 PM, Blair Zajac wrote:

> Kevin Van Vechten wrote:
>> Revisions should be a monotonically increasing serial number  
>> (think SVN revisions) indicating the revision of the Portfile.
>> The purpose of the revision is to provide a unique primary key for  
>> every portfile: {name, version, revision}.
>> - Kevin
>
> Right.  And it would be good to have a space for development  
> versions.  With RPMs, the default revision people use is 1, so if I  
> want to roll some beta RPMs out to people, I commonly use 0.01,  
> 0.02, etc.  It gives me a lot of space to get issues fixed, and  
> then when I'm happy with it, I bump the revision to 1.
>
> Regards,
> Blair