Re: Minor svn_version.h cleanups

On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 11:46:56PM +0100, Branko ??ibej wrote:
> 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.

dist.sh is exempt from voting. We copy it off trunk onto 1.0.x before a
release if there are any changes. I'd rather not have to jump through
the hoops of merging.

> It's annoying to talk about "patch numbers" and yet use "micro number"
> in the code.

Yup, but doing things the other way around doesn't stop you from getting
what you want. I don't think this is a big problem for people who need
to edit the svn_version.h and a well placed comment would solve that.

> >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.

Yup we have two options of how to deal with this:

a) Point MICRO to PATCH, modify dist.sh and start doing merges of
dist.sh.

b) Point PATCH to MICRO and do nothing else.

See, b is a heck of a lot easier...

> >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. :-)

Well I'd rather you just use the alternative I gave...

-- 
Ben Reser <ben@reser.org>
http://ben.reser.org
"Conscience is the inner voice which warns us somebody may be looking."
- H.L. Mencken
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org