Sorry, I didn't check e-mail at all over the weekend, otherwise I would
have posted earlier...
----- Original Message ----
> From: Kevin Radke <kmradke_at_gmail.com>
> 2.0.x just doesn't seem right either and I've never been a fan of years
> in the release numbers. 1.6.10x (or 1.6b.x) is the best balance of
> numbering in my book. In hindsight it probably would have been better
> to never try and keep them synced, but moving to 1.7.x when so
> many people are looking forward to the 1.7 svn changes that
> include working copy changes would cause confusion. I already have
> a hard enough time explaining that TortoiseSVN 1.6.7 is actually
> the "latest" version...
After reading through the thread:
- I agree the 2.x isn't warranted and would kind of have the same issue mentioned that the SVN guys might feel left behind. Perhaps if it was really compelling - i.e. a major rewrite or major change in TSVN, I might be pursued otherwise.
- I don't think the <year>...stuff would be very good and agree with reasons stated.
- I don't think breaking the link would be very good either, too much history with TSVN matching SVN at least in <major>.<minor>.
- I don't think 1.6.10 would be good either - too close to 1.6.9.
- 1.6.100 would be okay, but require a lot of explaining, and (as pointed out) breaks TSVN versioning policy.
Honestly, I think the 1.6b.x.y or 1.6-1.x.y would be best.
- It allows clear differentiation between the 1.6 and the new branch.
- It fits the TSVN policy that new features warrant at least a minor version number change.
- It wouldn't require a lot of education on user's part.
- There is no reason not to use a non-numeral in the version number.
Just my 2 cents.
Ben
------------------------------------------------------
http://tortoisesvn.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=757&dsMessageId=2447742
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [dev-unsubscribe_at_tortoisesvn.tigris.org].
Received on 2010-02-15 15:29:55 CET