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

Re: Release policy question

From: Mark Phippard <markp_at_softlanding.com>
Date: 2006-01-31 23:06:50 CET

Daniel Rall <dlr@collab.net> wrote on 01/31/2006 04:56:28 PM:

> On Tue, 31 Jan 2006, Karl Fogel wrote:
> > Daniel Rall <dlr@collab.net> writes:
> > > I too prefer Greg's suggested strategy. It's simpler, and results
> > > less possibility for errors when referring to a release, since it
> > > needn't be qualified with "rcX".
> >
> > Hmm. Somebody is misunderstanding something here, but I'm not sure if
> > it's you, me, or Greg, or some combination therewhom :-).
> >
> > IIUC, Greg wasn't proposing getting rid of the "-rcX" tarballs. He
> > was just saying let's never issue two tarballs with different content
> > but the same name (something we currently can do, and have done,
> > albeit in very limited circumstances).
> I'm saying it's simplest to call the new tarball x.y.(z + 1), if the
> previous tarball was named x.y.z. I'm advocating that approach even
> when nothing meaningful in the source code has changed between
> tarballs. I believe we've done this in the past when a tarball has
> been DOA.

Does this mean that the "GA" release of Subversion 1.3 might have been
release 1.3.8?


Scanned for SoftLanding Systems, Inc. and SoftLanding Europe Plc by IBM Email Security Management Services powered by MessageLabs.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Jan 31 23:07:55 2006

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.