Ben Reser wrote:
>On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 03:34:49AM +0100, Branko ??ibej wrote:
>
>
>>Would anyone object to something along the lines of the following patch?
>>I think it gets us a bit closer to say-what-I-mean. Of course I'd
>>replace uses of the deprecated bits in our code.
>>
>>
>
>Yes... It'll force dist.sh to be different for trunk and 1.0.x
>
I don't think that would be a problem. This commit wouldn't be a 1.0.x
candidate anyway, and if there are other unrelated changes to dist.sh
(which I'm sure there will be for 1.0) that /are/ 1.0.x candidates,
they'll be merged separately. Thank goodness for selective merging.
>and I don't think there's a lot of value in it.
>
>
It's annoying to talk about "patch numbers" and yet use "micro number"
in the code.
>If you want to take and do:
>
>#define SVN_VER_PATCH SVN_VER_MICRO
>
>
That's because dist.sh does textual replacement, yes? Like I said, I
don't think that's an issue.
>I'd be +0 on that. But I'm -0 on the patch you sent.
>
>
O.K. Anyone else? Otherwise I'll assume my +1 overrides your -0. :-)
-- Brane
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri May 14 00:47:24 2004