On Apr 15, 2012 6:54 AM, "Alagazam.net Subversion" <svn_at_alagazam.net> wrote:
>
> On 2012-04-15 04:15, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>>
>> Konstantin Kolinko wrote on Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 23:24:57 +0400:
>>>
>>> 2012/4/12 Daniel Shahaf<danielsh_at_apache.org>:
>>>>
>>>> We released 1.6.18 today and 1.7.4 just over a month ago. There are
>>>> a few useful items merged already, and STATUS has a truckload of
pending
>>>> changes.
>>>>
>>>> Shall we roll 1.7.5 in two weeks from today? If we can clear STATUS
and
>>>> roll next Thursday that's fine too, but I don't think we're in a hurry.
>>>
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> I have a proposal:
>>> Skip several numbers and name the next release as "1.7.7".
>>>
>>> Justification: to align with TortoiseSVN, which is 1.7.6 now.
>>
>> To summarize, the next release will be called 1.7.5 and Stefan Küng will
>> change tsvn's versioning scheme to
>> "%d.%d.%d-%d" % (SVN_VER_MAJOR, SVN_VER_MINOR, SVN_VER_PATCH,
tsvn_counter++).
>>
>> Thanks for raising this (and thanks Stefan for the fix his end).
>>
>> Daniel
>
>
> My suggestion is that SVN skips 1.7.5 and 1.7.6 and call next release
1.7.7
> There's no unusual about skipping versions due to issues found in the
release process (1.610 and 1.6.14 was never released) so lets call this an
"issue" and "pull" the 1.7.5 and 1.7.6 releases.
>
> If tsvn is willing to adjust their versioning scheme so why not help them
a bit to get aligned.
The dev community has already stated that svn won't skip versions to align
with downstream packages. What about all the others? Why support just tsvn?
How many do we need to compensate for?
Tsvn can certainly use whatever numbering it wants. The underlying issue is
that it is so *close* to Subversion's that it creates confusion on the
users mailing list.
-g
Received on 2012-04-15 14:25:33 CEST