On Tue, 2003-12-23 at 10:41, John Peacock wrote:
> Greg Hudson wrote:
> > In your world, I guess we might have released (let's assume even/odd
> > here, since it's your world) svn 1.2.0, svn 1.4.0, and svn 1.6.0 by
> > then, and 1.6.x is the only release we'll make bugfixes to.
> I don't know why you keep talking about skipped stable versions, since it does
> not correspond to the reality of pre-1.0 releases, nor does it necessarily
> correspond to post-1.0 development releases.
I'm not sure what you're asking. A few people (myself not included)
have voiced a preference for reserving odd middle numbers for
development snapshots and testing releases, and using only even middle
numbers for production releases. That's why I said 1.2.0, 1.4.0, and
1.6.0, rather than 1.1.0, 1.2.0, and 1.3.0 as I would personally have
called them. I wasn't skipping anything.
> Thus, in Sept 2004, the production version will be at 1.0.3 (some bugfixes) and
> the development track will be at 1.1.23 (or whatever). At this point, a 1.2.0
> branch is cut (from the head of the dev track) and will contain incompatible
> changes from the 1.0.x release. Then, when 1.2.0 is golden, 1.3.0 becomes the
> new dev track.
Justin was arguing that we should have production, public, stable,
new-featureful releases every 1-2 months. So in September 2004 we could
expect to have put out three or four of them after 1.0, in his world.
Thus, 1.2.0, 1.4.0, and 1.6.0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Dec 24 02:06:39 2003