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

Release policy question (was: Re: 1.3.0 tarballs up for testing/signing (again))

From: <kfogel_at_collab.net>
Date: 2005-12-31 03:01:03 CET

David Anderson <david.anderson@calixo.net> writes:
> After a slight mixup in the distribution scripts, the 1.3.0 tarballs have been
> rerolled. The new versions, rolled from r17949, are now available (as of 30
> December 15:00 GMT).
> http://lolut.utbm.info/pub/subversion-1.3.0/final/

Policy question:

In the past, we had a policy that once a tarball is mentioned in a
public forum, that name is used up, and any new tarball must have a
new name. But now, two different tarballs have been released into the
world under the name "1.3.0". Is this something we discussed and
decided we could live with?

(Yes, the old policy meant that if there was some problem with 1.3.0,
then the first "real" 1.3.x release would be 1.3.1. One purpose of
the "-rcX" releases preceding the first ".0" release in a series is to
minimize the chance of this happening... but if it did happen, it
wasn't supposed to be a disaster. In the old policy, maintaining
unambiguous uniqueness was considered most important.)

I don't see anything in www/hacking.html or notes/releases.txt to
resolve my question. I do recall some discussions in the semi-recent
past about this, so maybe we decided to loosen the policy (David's use
of "r17949" to disambiguate is an example of why this can work).

If we are all agreed that the new policy is

   "We will try as hard as we can, through the use of RCs, to avoid
   releasing different tarballs under the same name. But we may
   still allow it to happen as long as the tarball of that name is
   still in testing/signing and has not been officially 'blessed'."

then I (or someone) can update hacking.html accordingly.


David: I probably won't be able to test the new tarballs before the
New Year, sorry. For what it's worth, the previous 1.3.0 release
(r17947) did pass the 6-way tests for me. C'est la vie :-).


> Again, no end-user distribution and all that. This tarball is identical to the
> previous, with two exceptions:
> - A fix to dist.sh that was in trunk has been merged into the 1.3.x line.
> This fix makes svn_version.h change before the swig bindings are compiled. So
> now the version numbers should be correct in the pre-generated SWIG code.
> - The modification of the dist.sh script means the SWIG binding code has
> changed. Cosmetic only, as only the version numbers exported to SWIG have changed.
> Other than that, this tarball is the same as rc7 and as the previous "final"
> tarball.
> Committers, please test and submit your signatures, again.
> - Dave, aka. "The Two Tarballs"
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Dec 31 04:32:07 2005

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

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.