Starting to bump Gnus version numbers again

Starting to bump Gnus version numbers again

[Lars Ingebrigtsen]

I think we should start increasing the No Gnus version numbers again,
and just follow the scheme we used in the olden days.  That is, just
increase them now and then if we've determined that "it kinda works
now", which is usually once a week.  And there would be no meaning to
odd/even numbers and stuff.

So unless anybody objects, and someone can tell me how to tag Gnus
versions in git :-), I'll bump start bumping the version numbers.  It's
not very helpful to see that a user is using No Gnus 0.11, since that
could be three years old.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
  larsi@gnus.org * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen

Re: Starting to bump Gnus version numbers again

[James Cloos]

>>>>> "LI" == Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> writes:

LI> So unless anybody objects, and someone can tell me how to tag Gnus
LI> versions in git :-),

Please use:

       git tag -s -u <keyid> <tagname>

where <keyid> is a gpg key id and <tagname> is the version string you
want to use as the tag.

Using a signed key makes <<git describe>> work best.

You can specify your default key id in the [user] section of your ~/.gitconfig
using a signingkey entry, such as:

[user]
        name = Lars Ingebrigtsen
        email = larsi@gnus.org
        signingkey = <your key id>

-JimC
-- 
James Cloos <cloos@jhcloos.com>         OpenPGP: 1024D/ED7DAEA6

Re: Starting to bump Gnus version numbers again

[Lars Ingebrigtsen]

James Cloos <cloos@jhcloos.com> writes:

> You can specify your default key id in the [user] section of your ~/.gitconfig
> using a signingkey entry, such as:
>
> [user]
>         name = Lars Ingebrigtsen
>         email = larsi@gnus.org
>         signingkey = <your key id>

I don't think I have a key id?  Or do I?

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
  larsi@gnus.org * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen

Re: Starting to bump Gnus version numbers again

[Andreas Schwab]

James Cloos <cloos@jhcloos.com> writes:

> Using a signed key makes <<git describe>> work best.

You don't need to sign it, it just has to be annotated.

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, schwab@linux-m68k.org
GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756  01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."

Re: Starting to bump Gnus version numbers again

[James Cloos]

>>>>> "AS" == Andreas Schwab <schwab@linux-m68k.org> writes:

AS> James Cloos <cloos@jhcloos.com> writes:
>> Using a signed key makes <<git describe>> work best.

AS> You don't need to sign it, it just has to be annotated.

He is right.  I must have conflated the concepts of signed and annotated
tags at some point; I /had/ been thinking of them as identical.

So use:

   git tag -a <tagname>

to get an (unsigned) annotated tag.

Many projects use the tag name itself as the commit message for
annotated tags.  Or, if the tag is just the version, some use
the versioned name as the mesage, such as:

  git tag -a -m foobar-1.4.50 1.4.50

or the like.

-JimC
-- 
James Cloos <cloos@jhcloos.com>         OpenPGP: 1024D/ED7DAEA6

Re: Starting to bump Gnus version numbers again

[jidanni]

Why can't you fellows use version numbers right down to the "r" commit
level of granularity like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Version ?
Else "how could we both be using the same version, but it acts differently?"

Re: Starting to bump Gnus version numbers again

[Lars Ingebrigtsen]

jidanni@jidanni.org writes:

> Why can't you fellows use version numbers right down to the "r" commit
> level of granularity

git commits aren't linear.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
  larsi@gnus.org * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen

Re: Starting to bump Gnus version numbers again

[Lars Ingebrigtsen]

James Cloos <cloos@jhcloos.com> writes:

> So use:
>
>    git tag -a <tagname>

There's a lot of release stuff in the Makefile that hasn't been updated
since the CVS days.

But do we need all that stuff?  That is, is there any point in doing
"releases" any more?  tarballs and diffs seem kinda antiquated at this
point.  If people want a specific version of No Gnus, then can just use
git to pull it down, can't they?

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
  larsi@gnus.org * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen

Re: Starting to bump Gnus version numbers again

[Lars Ingebrigtsen]

I've now written a new "makepub" script, and modified things to possibly
work with git.  And ran it.  *gulp*

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
  larsi@gnus.org * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen

Re: Starting to bump Gnus version numbers again

[Andreas Schwab]

Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> writes:

> I've now written a new "makepub" script, and modified things to possibly
> work with git.  And ran it.  *gulp*

You didn't push your tags, though.

(git tags can contain periods, btw.)

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, schwab@linux-m68k.org
GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756  01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."

Re: Starting to bump Gnus version numbers again

[Lars Ingebrigtsen]

Andreas Schwab <schwab@linux-m68k.org> writes:

> You didn't push your tags, though.

Hm.  I did say "git push".  Do I need to say something special to push
the tags?

> (git tags can contain periods, btw.)

Right.  But I wanted to maintain the same naming scheme as back in the
olden days.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
  larsi@gnus.org * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen

Re: Starting to bump Gnus version numbers again

[Lars Ingebrigtsen]

Andreas Schwab <schwab@linux-m68k.org> writes:

> You didn't push your tags, though.

Ah, that was simple enough.  I think.

larsi@lenovo:~/pgnus$ git push --tags
Counting objects: 1, done.
Writing objects: 100% (1/1), 173 bytes, done.
Total 1 (delta 0), reused 0 (delta 0)
To https://git.gnus.org/gnus.git
 * [new tag]         n0-12 -> n0-12

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
  larsi@gnus.org * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen

Re: Starting to bump Gnus version numbers again

[Russ Allbery]

Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> writes:
> Andreas Schwab <schwab@linux-m68k.org> writes:

>> You didn't push your tags, though.

> Hm.  I did say "git push".  Do I need to say something special to push
> the tags?

git push --tags

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

Re: Starting to bump Gnus version numbers again

[Andreas Schwab]

Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> writes:

> Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> writes:
>> Andreas Schwab <schwab@linux-m68k.org> writes:
>
>>> You didn't push your tags, though.
>
>> Hm.  I did say "git push".  Do I need to say something special to push
>> the tags?
>
> git push --tags

$ git push tag $tag

(It's safer to push a tag explicitly, to avoid accidentally publishing
private tags.)

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, schwab@linux-m68k.org
GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756  01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."

Re: Starting to bump Gnus version numbers again

[Lars Ingebrigtsen]

Andreas Schwab <schwab@linux-m68k.org> writes:

> $ git push tag $tag
>
> (It's safer to push a tag explicitly, to avoid accidentally publishing
> private tags.)

Right.  I've now made this change.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
  larsi@gnus.org * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen

Re: Starting to bump Gnus version numbers again

[jidanni]

>>>>> "LI" == Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> writes:
LI> git commits aren't linear.
Then use a timestamp then.