Re: Release policy question

Max Bowsher <maxb1@ukf.net> writes:
> The issue here, is balancing the technical correctness of our version
> numbers with the public perception of them.

Agreed.

> Having the first real release of 1.3.x being called 1.3.1 would have
> been odd. Perhaps what we should have done is to have called the reroll
> "1.3.0a" - similar to what Debian did with a tiny bug in sarge, which
> resulted in "Debian 3.1r0" followed by "Debian 3.1r0a".

I think people would find that more confusing than just re-releasing
"1.3.0" (I know I would, anyway).

I'm okay with Justin's and Erik's policy suggestion, already posted in
response to my mail. I'll wait a bit to hear more feedback, then
modify hacking.html accordingly.

-Karl

-- 
www.collab.net  <>  CollabNet  |  Distributed Development On Demand
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org