Re: Safety first: previewing with a 1.0.0-beta1

From: Ben Collins-Sussman <sussman_at_collab.net>
Date: 2004-02-17 22:38:06 CET

On Tue, 2004-02-17 at 14:23, kfogel@collab.net wrote:

> Fitz and others have pointed out the Goodness of a "one last check"
> tarball, just to make sure we haven't done anything dumb. The
> difference between '1.0.0-beta1' and '1.0.0' would be *only* the tweak
> in svn_version.h, changing SVN_VER_TAG from "beta1" back to "".

This makes sense to me. The whole point would be to test the tarball
itself (i.e. make sure it doesn't have any silly libtool problems and so
on.) I would hate to release 1.0.0 on Monday and then 1.0.1 the next
day just because of a tarball bug!

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Feb 17 22:42:29 2004

This message: [ Message body ]
Next message: kfogel_at_collab.net: "proposal: 1.0.1 to follow 1.0.0 fairly quickly"
Previous message: kfogel_at_collab.net: "Re: Missing runtime version number API - add for 1.0?"
In reply to: kfogel_at_collab.net: "Safety first: previewing with a 1.0.0-beta1"
Next in thread: Jostein Chr. Andersen: "Re: Safety first: previewing with a 1.0.0-beta1"

Contemporary messages sorted: [ By Date ] [ By Thread ] [ By Subject ] [ By Author ] [ By messages with attachments ]