On 03/12/2012 04:56 PM, Allan McRae wrote:
On 13/03/12 05:22, Matthew Monaco wrote:
On 03/12/2012 01:13 PM, Dave Reisner wrote:
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 12:53:11PM -0600, dgbaley27@0x01b.net wrote:
From: Matthew Monaco <matthew.monaco@0x01b.net>
Rather than prioritizing an arbitrary VCS, collect all development directives. If there is more than one, use the package name as a hint. If that doesn't work, abort. ---
I'm not really sure I understand the need for this. In what use case are multiple VCS definitions needed?
I've only seen multiples when a project is transitioning to a new system. Either way, I think that splitting the check for the which vcs is being used and setting the new version might be useful.
I do not understand this argument. I have never seen a project transitioning from one VCS to another in such a way that you had to use both VCS systems to get the source. If that happens, you probably have two different projects managed by the same people and should have two packages.
It wasn't the point of the change; just a potential scenario given when asked. I was in the function and figured Murphy's Law indicated at some point someone was going to do something funny. The real change that I'm after is that a package has to be named appropriately to get an automatic version bump by default.