[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 Hudson <ghudson_at_MIT.EDU>
Date: 2003-12-05 00:18:09 CET

On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 18:07, Brian W. Fitzpatrick wrote:
> Normal users shouldn't ever even be aware of development (odd-numbered)
> releases--I mean, when's the last time that you went and "accidentally"
> grabbed a 2.5 release of the Linux kernel because you saw that 2.5.x is
> higher than 2.4.x?

I'm sure it happens, but probably not all that frequently since the
intersection of {users who want to muck with their kernel} and {users
who shouldn't be using odd-numbered Linux releases} is fairly small.

I have certainly accidentally grabbed about two dozen odd-numbered GNOME
package releases from their FTP site for work and wasted a day cleaning
up afterwards. That's why I hate that convention: even if you know it
exists, you also have to know which projects it applies to.

> And to address other issues, any package maintainer
> worth his salt isn't going to blindly package up a dev release without
> wrapping it in yellow-tape and concertina wire.

This seems naive to me. People have been blindly packaging up
Subversion 0.x releases without wrapping them in yellow-tape for years.
Red Hat 9 includes svn 0.17 with nary a warning for the user. The fact
that there are binary packages of svn 0.x at all vaguely horrifies me
(except on Windows, where source distribution isn't very accessible to
most users), but I've always figured there is nothing I can do about it.

But I can try to make sure that our version numbers aren't deceptive.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Dec 5 00:19:58 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.