Re: 1.3.1 tarballs up for testing/signing

On 3/14/06, Malcolm Rowe <malcolm-svn-dev@farside.org.uk> wrote:
> If a release or candidate release needs to be quickly re-issued due to
> some non-code problem (say, a packaging glitch), it's okay to reuse
> the same name, as long as the tarball hasn't been blessed by signing
> yet. But if it has been uploaded to the standard distribution area with
> signatures, or if the re-issue was due to a change in code a user might
> run, then the old name must be tossed and the next name used.

Yes, since our code is not changing at all, it's fine to reuse the
version number. All we're changing is the neon (and probably APR)
bundled with the tarball. If anything in our tree gets changed, poof
- it's a new version number. -- justin

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Mar 14 18:14:48 2006