On Dec 4, 2003, at 3:58 PM, Greg Hudson wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 18:41, Brian W. Fitzpatrick wrote:
>> OK, so how about if we stick to the even/odd convention, plus we
>> include either the string 'dev' or 'unstable' in development
>> releases?
>
> Well, it's not totally anathema to me, but it strikes me as ugly and I
> don't see what it buys us.
> I reiterate that we should consider limiting ourselves to making
> version-numbered releases on stable branches only, and not making
> "development" releases. If you look at the larger body of free
> software
> projects out there, most of them do not make a frequent practice of
> making development releases after they reach 1.0. The big example of a
> project which does so is the Linux kernel, which historically hasn't
> had
> a publically accessible repository to pull from. (And it has much less
> frequent development releases now that it does have such a repository.)
Well, I don't think that we should roll releases from the development
track until it's taken shape and we're looking for a broader set of
testers prior to going to a release candidate.
Basically, once we declare a 1.0 release, I don't see a need to roll a
dev tarball for quite some time (at the very least, a few months).
-Fitz
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Dec 5 01:09:19 2003