Naming the Windows installer

[Martin Pool]

2009/8/13 John Arbash Meinel <john at arbash-meinel.com>:
> Which would hint and using:
>  bzr-1.18rc1-1.setup.exe
> and
>  bzr-1.18rc1-1.win32-py2.5.exe
>
> That would honestly be the easiest for me to get automated, as I would
> probably just add a variable in "setup.py" (probably an ENV var, etc)
> that would get passed into the 'version=' information.

To me that looks good. It does kind of imply that if you found a bug
in the setup.exe version you'd rebuild all of them, or at least have
one sequence across all of them that might have gaps in.  In other
words 1.18rc1-2.setup.exe should be in sync with
1.18rc1-2.win32-py2.5.exe

> I'm interested in feedback, though. Certainly the complaint still holds
> that "1.18rc1-1" looks like '-1' is a version of bzr and not a version
> of the installer.

We probably will get bug reports saying "I'm using bzr 1.18-1" but I
don't think that's a big problem.

We may get people looking for the 1.18-1 source tarball or binary for
other platforms.  But then I'd suggest other platforms should follow
this too, in as much as it's consistent with local conventions.
> (And Martin's comment could just have been codifying
> my current practice, and not really thinking a lot about it independently.)

It was partly codifying your practice, but also affirming it because
it's consistent with what Debian do: there are upstream and packaging
versions separated by a dash.

So +1 to continue.

> For now, I'm just going to stick with the last form, because it is
> consistent with what I've been doing.
>
> And on the plus side, installers for 1.18rc1 have finally been built.
>
Great.

-- 
Martin <http://launchpad.net/~mbp/>