On Sun, 2022-10-23 at 18:36 +0000, c.buhtz@posteo.jp wrote:
This makes at least supporting Arch Linux easier since their packages are quite often directly pulled from Git (using a tag, commit ID or nothing) and I need to know the source code base for debugging...
They don't use "nothing". They use tag or the commit-hash of the tagged commit. So I see no problem here. Just using the last master/main commit would be irresponsible for a distro maintainer.
It depends on the purpose and 1 out of 4 BiT packages on AUR for Arch just pulls the HEAD (if I understand PKGBUILD correctly, see https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/PKGBUILD): https://aur.archlinux.org/cgit/aur.git/tree/PKGBUILD?h=backintime-git This version caused the installation problems on Arch in #1333 and I start to love ARCH for this because it is a "canary bird" (early indicator of problems before BiT hits the mainstream distros)
I strongly recommend to use the standard known as "Semantic Versioning" (https://semver.org).
I personally never liked the semantic versioning since it doesn't tell me anything about how old the version is. I prefer the timestamped versioning via "yyyy.mm.dd-xxxx" which is also sortable to recognize newer versions due to the reversed date. It is e. g. partially used by Ubuntu ("22.04")... But this is just a matter of taste. I can live with any versioning systematics that is applied consequently.