Default revision of 1

[Blair Zajac]

James Berry wrote:
> 
> On Oct 9, 2006, at 8:23 PM, Blair Zajac wrote:
> 
>> When I'm developing a new port or want to override the default port in 
>> MacPort's
>> svn with a local port of a newer upstream release, it would be nice to 
>> have a
>> range of revision numbers that is smaller than any revision number from
>> MacPort's svn repository.
> 
> Well, to keep revisions sacrosanct , which kvv argues for and I agree 
> with, another option might be to use small negative epoch values.

I think committed revision numbers should be integers, but start at 1.

> I believe epoch defaults to zero. So if you used a small negative epoch 
> for your internal development, and removed epoch on release, I believe 
> you'd have a solution to your problem. Assuming that all the epoch 
> comparisons work correctly for negative numbers, which they probably do. 
> You'd need to do some testing to figure verify this.
> 
> The nice thing, of course, is that maps well to the intended use of 
> epoch: version numbering in entirely different spaces.

I haven't tried epochs, but will (epoch=1, name=subversion, version=1.4.1, 
revision=21872) be greater than (epoch=0, name=subversion, version=1.4.0, 
revision=0)?  Here 21872 is the HEAD revision for Subversion's repository.  Does 
epoch trump version and revision numbers.

I wasn't clear concerning how I manage local ports and how I would like them to 
work.

1) I set up my own Port repository and enable it in 
/opt/local/etc/ports/sources.conf.

2) I develop an updated Portfile for my local Port repository.  I use epoch=-1 
or revision=0.01 or some technique.

3) I submit the patch into Trac.

4) When the Port owner commits the patch, my version is automatically outdated 
and I update to the official version.

Currently, I have no way of maintain my own port that will be outdated by an 
official Portfile, because the default revision is 0.

Regards,
Blair