[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: solo turn <soloturn99_at_yahoo.com>
Date: 2003-12-14 18:49:27 CET

--- Greg Hudson <ghudson@MIT.EDU> wrote:
> Here's some points of contention:
>
> * If we do make these unstable tarballs, we {would branch for a week
> or so first, like we do with 0.x releases now, in order to write a
> CHANGES file and catch serious bugs/would just document the really
> interesting new features and then make a snapshot of the trunk,
> because we won't have a population of users trying to use our
> unstable trunk releases for serious work like we do for 0.x
> releases}.
i would disagree in this point. the 1.0 users will be additional users.
if svn's quality stays like it is, the users using the 0.xx now will
continue to use trunk, whatever it is called.

why should one stay with 1.0, if a performant working copy, (re)merging
support, repository replication, certificate based authentication and
signature, and other features are missing? why should one stay with 1.0,
if svn itself is hosted with trunk, and will work as it does now?

but i think this is only true if there is binaries and self-hosting
at these versions (which guarantees that basic functionality is working
and no data is lost).

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sun Dec 14 18:49:52 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.