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

Re: Things you must consider for version numbering

From: <kfogel_at_collab.net>
Date: 2003-12-17 03:11:47 CET

John Peacock <jpeacock@rowman.com> writes:
> > Here are Karl's answers, as best I understand them:
> > 1) subversion-unstable-1.1.0
> > 2) subversion-unstable-1.1.1
> > 3) subversion-1.2.0
> > 4) subversion-1.2.1
> > 5) subversion-unstable-1.3.0
>
> And my suggestions would be the following (more like a combination of the two):
>
> 1) subversion-unstable-1.1.0-rXXXX
> 2) subversion-unstable-1.1.1-rXXXX
> 3) subversion-1.2.0
> 4) subversion-1.2.1
> 5) subversion-unstable-1.3.0-rXXXX
>
> because e.g. #1 could be built from multiple revs, depending on when
> during that week or two that I ran 'svn up' before building.

Hrm?

We're talking about blessed releases in these questions -- releases
that came from us, via the release manager. Those are never "dev
builds", and there's no reason for them to include a revision number.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Dec 17 04:00:55 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.