On Fri, Dec 05, 2003 at 09:37:26AM -0800, Kevin Pilch-Bisson wrote:
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Sander Striker [mailto:striker@apache.org]
> > Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 2:33 AM
> > To: dev@subversion.tigris.org
> > Subject: Re: 0.35 => Beta => 1.0 schedule
> >
[snip]
> >
> Snip rest of Sanders proposal.
>
> I don't like the idea of using -dev in the name, so just to add to the mix,
> here's my proposal.
>
> Why don't we have:
> * released versions with version numbers.
> * snapshot releases, with just a datestamp or a revision number.
>
> So you would have subversion-1.0.tar.gz, and
> subversion-unstable-r12860.tar.gz
>
> I think this scheme avoids the confusion about version numbers, and makes it
> clear that this is an unstable release?
>
> -- Kevin.
An added benefit of using a timestamp (e.g., subversion-20031205.tar.gz)
is that the end user will have some idea how bleeding edge that
development version is. It is more difficult to know if r12860 is from
yesterday, a month ago or ...? And if the user is able to find that out,
they are probably also able to compile the most recent revision
themselves :-) The timestamp might also satisfy dpkg's sorting
criteria?
-Mason
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Dec 6 05:27:51 2003