[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: Release procedures improvements.

From: Ben Reser <ben_at_reser.org>
Date: 2005-04-06 21:40:26 CEST

On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 01:05:12AM -0400, Greg Hudson wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-04-05 at 21:38, kfogel@collab.net wrote:
> > but when unpacked, it would still create
> >
> > subversion-1.2.0-rc1/
>
> I don't think that's really a compelling reason to consider the version
> number gone, if the tarball is named something nondescriptive. But if
> other people do, I won't argue about it at length.

I'm not fond of tossing version numbers for the reasons you pointed out
in your previous email. I guess it comes down to this...

If we're going to publically post prerelease tarballs I guess we don't
have much choice in this. Otherwise we'll have people running around
with a version that identifies itself as 1.2.0-rc1 but it's really our
first crack at it. So then we spend lots of time trying to figure out
why they're having this issue that we've already fixed.

If we don't publically post prerelease tarballs then I agree, there's no
reason to toss version numbers. I think the committers can be
reasponsible enough to trash them if we decide not to use them and to
not pass them onto someone that doesn't know what they are.

Given that there is some preference to doing the public route I guess we
have to be prepared to toss version numbers.

-- 
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
Received on Wed Apr 6 23:23:19 2005

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.