I had to sign up to the list to reply (I guess an aur account allows for the initial request by not a discussion....which is why I initally replied to Doug privately.) Anyways......my reply is at the end of this message. (And I apologize if an earlier attempt that failed finds its way here.) On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 8:58 AM, Doug Newgard <scimmia@archlinux.info> wrote:
On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 08:42:00 -0700 daddy bird <nmlibertarian@gmail.com> wrote:
Hey Doug;
Many thanks for the VERY speedy reply. Please let me try to expand on my request;
Well...yes there IS a devel release, the git repo and it's various branches. i.e. When this -devel was first packaged in 2009 there was some use of the old/now-abandoned/not-updated svn repos, albeit this particular package seems to be aNOT from those development repos and simply a "point-release". i.e. I am not at all sure why it was ever labeled as "-devel" !!
To wit: I very recently (today) placed gnucash-git into the aur, and this DOES use the current development repo ! SO how is another package that is NOT based on the current development repo, and merely an old "point-release" correctly labeled "-devel" ?
Anyways, my points may be taken as rhetorical to some extent, but I am suggesting there isn't a good reason to leave this in the aur.
VERY best regards;
not_anonymous
Please reply to the list, not just to me. I'm sending this to the list and cc'ing you.
You don't seem to understand the difference between a repo and development/unstable release. It's not at all uncommon for software in the FLOSS world to have even number releases be the stable software (ie 2.4, 2.6, etc) and odd number releases are in development (ie 2.1, 2.3, etc). This is why this package exists, for those development releases. This is completely different than pulling from Git HEAD.
Doug
Yes exactly what I was trying to say !! : Has the old development model with svn repos and odd/even release numbering been superseded with the git-branch model ? (That is a good summation of my initial request and my more expansive follow-up email sent to you privately.) Yes. (Simple answer.) Why ? Here are the relevant details 1) that the 2.5.x chain was "unstable" and preceded the 2.6.x releases: < http://wiki.gnucash.org/wiki/Announcement_2.5.0#Gnucash_2.5.0_Unstable > (Please note the (last edit) date on this wiki page.) And 2) that the new model is as I stated in my request and expanded on in my email to you.: < http://wiki.gnucash.org/wiki/Development_Process#Branches > (This page is dated from earlier this month.) Also please note that (as you already surmised,) the odd/even numbering stopped being used as there was NO 2.7.x series started after the release of 2.6.1 (as would have been their (gnucash's) custom) ! Thanks again for being so cautious. Keeping this package around is fine, but I would rather be able to update this by actually offering BOTH branches of the GIT as PKGBUILDs. <- Which I would be happy to consider doing if that would be o.k. with you. Finally, VERY best regards; not_anonymous