Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

rfc: 0012-changelog-specification.md #12

Merged
merged 13 commits into from
Aug 26, 2024

Conversation

Zeno-sole
Copy link
Contributor

@Zeno-sole Zeno-sole commented Jul 25, 2024

提供统一的changelog版本号规范

明确各个场景下的版本号规范

@Zeno-sole
Copy link
Contributor Author

@Zeno-sole
Copy link
Contributor Author

todo: 多版本共存时安全更新版本号机制

@Zeno-sole
Copy link
Contributor Author

todo: 多版本共存时安全更新版本号机制

已补充

Copy link
Collaborator

@BLumia BLumia left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

总体没有问题,请酌情调整格式。现有文档的渲染效果存在一些问题(下面也附带了相对应的修改建议)

rfcs/0012-changelog-specification.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
rfcs/0012-changelog-specification.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
rfcs/0012-changelog-specification.md Show resolved Hide resolved
rfcs/0012-changelog-specification.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

**changelog版本规范**

`upstreamversion-${ver1}deepin${ver2}`
Copy link

@kt286 kt286 Aug 19, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

为啥不定一个全局统一的版本号规范呢,这样的话不用判断那么多种情况了
我的建议如下
upstreamversion+deepin${ver1}[+dp26u${ver2}][+u${ver3}][+rb${ver4}]
ver1 来自deepin的patch版本,这块必须,且从0开始
ver2 安全补丁版本,这块只有发布安全补丁时需要
ver3 CI编译版本,这快只有CI编译时有
ver4 rebuild次数,这块只有rebuild时才添加

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

针对不用情况下使用不同的版本号规范,上述的很多情况都是少数情况下才会使用,开发者&审阅者需要判断当前软件包处理什么状态
其次这个规范本就是全局统一的, 只是分不同的情况分开讨论了

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

为啥不定一个全局统一的版本号规范呢,这样的话不用判断那么多种情况了 我的建议如下 upstreamversion+deepin${ver1}[+dp26u${ver2}][+u${ver3}][+rb${ver4}] ver1 来自deepin的patch版本,这块必须,且从0开始 ver2 安全补丁版本,这块只有发布安全补丁时需要 ver3 CI编译版本,这快只有CI编译时有 ver4 rebuild次数,这块只有rebuild时才添加

因为我们要定主线/非主线
主线是没有安全补丁、CI编译的,只有rebuild

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

为啥不定一个全局统一的版本号规范呢,这样的话不用判断那么多种情况了 我的建议如下 upstreamversion+deepin${ver1}[+dp26u${ver2}][+u${ver3}][+rb${ver4}] ver1 来自deepin的patch版本,这块必须,且从0开始 ver2 安全补丁版本,这块只有发布安全补丁时需要 ver3 CI编译版本,这快只有CI编译时有 ver4 rebuild次数,这块只有rebuild时才添加

因为我们要定主线/非主线 主线是没有安全补丁、CI编译的,只有rebuild

我这个是所有的都使用同一个格式, upstreamversion 后跟了四大块,[] 里的内容是非必须的,需要的时候添加,这样可以组合出文章里提到的全部情况
upstreamversion +deepin${ver1} [+dp26u${ver2}] [+u${ver3}] [+rb${ver4}]

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

针对不用情况下使用不同的版本号规范,上述的很多情况都是少数情况下才会使用,开发者&审阅者需要判断当前软件包处理什么状态 其次这个规范本就是全局统一的, 只是分不同的情况分开讨论了

我的意思是不同情况下格式不太一样,我上边的建议是统一的格式,需要的项目自由增删
upstreamversion +deepin${ver1} [+dp26u${ver2}] [+u${ver3}] [+rb${ver4}]

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

使用 UTsweetyfish 提的方案3 也就不需要改这个了

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@kt286 @RevySR @UTsweetyfish 已更新 用UTsweetyfish提出的方案三解决 +dp23u1 < rb1 的问题 ,请各位及时review或提出其他问题

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

使用 UTsweetyfish 提的方案3 也就不需要改这个了

BNF 已更新

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

BNF已经加入正文中

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@kt286 @RevySR @UTsweetyfish BNF已更新 请及时review 期望本周内能merge

Copy link

@UTsweetyfish UTsweetyfish left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@UTsweetyfish UTsweetyfish self-requested a review August 21, 2024 08:11
Copy link

@UTsweetyfish UTsweetyfish left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

lgtm now. 需注意:

  1. BNF 中的部分规则(如 UPSTREAM_VERSIONDEBIAN_REVISION)仅为示例,如部署相关检查时应以实际情况为准。
  2. VER_DEEPIN_MAJOR 目前只规定了 23 与 25,也应以实际为准。
  3. CI 版本不应有 REBUILD_TAG。

@shiptux
Copy link
Member

shiptux commented Aug 22, 2024

/approve

@Zeno-sole
Copy link
Contributor Author

该提案已经进入最终的评审流程,如无其他意见本提案将于2024-08-19日合并 各位悉知

@UTsweetyfish
Copy link

该提案已经进入最终的评审流程,如无其他意见本提案将于2024-08-19日合并 各位悉知

今天已经是 20240823 了

@Zeno-sole
Copy link
Contributor Author

/approve

@deepin-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: BLumia, hudeng-go, shiptux, UTsweetyfish, Zeno-sole

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@Zeno-sole Zeno-sole merged commit 23dcc75 into deepin-community:master Aug 26, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

8 participants