[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: 0.35 => Beta => 1.0 schedule

From: Greg Stein <gstein_at_lyra.org>
Date: 2003-12-04 22:50:36 CET

On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 03:22:30PM -0500, John Peacock wrote:
> Greg Hudson wrote:
> > Users are presented with version numbers in a vacuum all the time. They
> > run into an already-installed version, they visit an FTP site, they do
> > an rpmfind query, whatever. We don't control the user's first encounter
> > with Subversion.
> And in each of those cases, there is some context. Anyone packaging an RPM
> would be foolish not to note "Stable" vs "Development" release, etc. It is not
> uncommon that the development releases are only available in user-unfriendly
> form (checked out from the repository vs. RPM). As long as it is clear on the
> official site what the Stable release is, it doesn't matter what to call the files.

Agreed. Either the filename uses the even/odd methodology, or you must
actually include the *word* stable/unstable into the name. One or the
other is needed to specify stability. I don't think we want any words in
the version number / filename, so that leaves the version number.

> All I am saying is that the 'even/odd' distinction is mostly for the developers
> sanity, and is in use today in a wide variety of settings and works well (c.f.
> Linux kernel). I don't see a lot of reason to get worked up over it, nor is
> there a better scheme available.



Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Dec 4 22:53:51 2003

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.