[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: version numbering (was: 0.35 => Beta => 1.0 schedule)

From: Justin Erenkrantz <justin_at_erenkrantz.com>
Date: 2003-12-06 08:16:32 CET

--On Friday, December 5, 2003 1:52 PM -0800 Greg Stein <gstein@lyra.org> wrote:

> Yah, tho I'd go with the snapshot proposal. To support interim packagers,
> we could say that our initial stable release will be 1.1.1 so that they
> can use 1.1.0.NNNN for those interim builds.

As John pointed out, what would 'svn --version' say under this scheme? Or,
would we only have x.y.z for stable releases?

> Summarizing my email... it is just what Kevin posted:
> * interim releases are revnum-labeled
> * stable releases are version-labeled

How about version compatibility and binary compatibility rules? They have to
apply at all times once 1.0 hits.

Also, I'd think that the 'unstable' version *needs* a version number for DSOs;
not having a version for the dynamic linker is going to piss it off. -- justin

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Dec 6 08:17:06 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.