Open Stack

On 06/08/2015 06:10 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> On 2015-06-08 16:53:21 +0100 (+0100), Dave Walker wrote:
>> This breaks the desire of wanting to have a shared version scheme if
>> consumers add their own local patches via git.  This works fine for
>> consumers that do not use git for handling their local patches, but
>> does not support the model of allowing the user to rebase using git.
>>
>> Perhaps tags ARE superior for this?
> 
> Agreed, even the .devN (or earlier .postN) versioning has the same
> issue. If you rely on PBR autoversioning for non-tagged commits then
> your local commits _will_ conflict with upstream autoversions.

The problem is that we use the 2 first numbers as major version. If
instead of:

2015.1.N

we switch to something like:

20151.X.Y

then we restore sanity and a real semver system.

Cheers,

Thomas Goirand (zigo)