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
in
> > > 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?
Mark
_____________________________________________________________________________
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