Re: 0.35 => Beta => 1.0 schedule

Brian W. Fitzpatrick wrote:

>
> On Dec 4, 2003, at 3:22 PM, Branko Čibej wrote:
>
>> 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?
>>
>>
>> Um. there's a world of difference between the Linux kernel and
>> Subversion. For one thing, far more people are likely to grab a new
>> Subversion release.
>
>
> OK, so how about if we stick to the even/odd convention, plus we
> include either the string 'dev' or 'unstable' in development releases?
>
> subversion-1.1.32-dev.tar.gz
> or
> subversion-1.1.32-unstable.tar.gz
>
> as opposed to stable releases:
>
> subversion-1.0.87.tar.gz
>
> Does that seem like a reasonable compromise?

It's more than a compromise, it's having *two* dev/release resolution
shcemas. :-)

Oh, remember that we have to make the dev/release distinction on the
stable branch, too. So there'd be a 1.0.87-dev, which would come to life
as soon as 1.0.86 was released, and die with the release of 1.0.87.

-- 
Brane Čibej   <brane_at_xbc.nu>   http://www.xbc.nu/brane/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org