[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: Jani Averbach <jaa_at_jaa.iki.fi>
Date: 2003-12-05 02:26:53 CET

On 2003-12-04 18:08-0600, kfogel@collab.net wrote:
> Regarding that other topic, numbering schemes:

First of, I am happy with even/odd scheme - users have to always find
out what is the stable version and what is the development version (if
there is any). If you just start poking around ftp server, and grab
what ever you first find, you are digging blood from your
nose. Moreover, what ever the schema will be, it should be documented
very top of README/INSTALL so I really don't see an issue here.

However, may I introduce my own proposal? =)

> Thus we'd have a stable maintenance line like this
> subversion-1.0.0.tar.gz
> subversion-1.0.1.tar.gz
> subversion-1.0.2.tar.gz
> And development releases like this:
> subversion-1.1.0-dev.tar.gz
> subversion-1.1.1-dev.tar.gz
> subversion-1.1.2-dev.tar.gz

How I read that:

"subversion" "dev release for 1.1.0" , which might/will be stable some day.

So, I propose that the "dev" will prefix release number, in that way
the first thing that will hit your brains is that this is "dev",
after that you will find out the release number, package format, etc..

subversion-dev-1.1.0.tar.gz, subversion-dev-1.1.0.rpm...

In general, I am against that "dev" tag, and definitely happy with
even/odd schema, and +1 for it.

BR, Jani

Jani Averbach
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Dec 5 02:27:24 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.