Ben Reser wrote:
>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.
>
>
Really? That strikes me as being wrong because I find it reasonable to
expect that there could be incompatible changes between the stable and
development branches.
>>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.
>
>
All you gain is delaying dist.sh merges until trunk becomes 2.0-dev. Do
you really think there will be significant changes in dist.sh, that need
merging to 1.0.x, before that branch dies off -- around about the 1.1
release, I'd expect?
-- 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 08:17:41 2004