On Fri, 2003-12-05 at 16:52, Greg Stein wrote:
> I believe the svn-snapshot-rNNNN mechanism neatly sidesteps the need for
> this decision. Since we won't apply version numbers to intermediate
> (unstable) releases, then we don't need even/odd as a marker. We also
> don't need "beta" or whatnot in the name.
We are ever so close to agreement... but we do need to think about what
happens for the 4-8 weeks after we branch to stabilize for 1.1.
"subversion-snapshot-r8869" works great for a snapshot off the trunk,
but not so much for a not-yet-stabilized release off the 1.1 branch. I
can live with subversion-1.1.beta1, subversion-1.1.0-beta (such that the
first vetted release is subversion-1.1.5 or something),
subversion-1.1.snapshot-r8869, subversion-snapshot-1.1-r8869, or
whatever.
As Fitz pointed out on IRC, we don't need to decide this until we
actually branch for 1.1. But I'd actually kind of like to nail this
down, put it into HACKING, and never have to argue about it again. (I'm
such an optimist.)
(Oh, and please put me on your list of addresses not to send
auto-responses to.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Dec 6 02:33:03 2003