[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: Sigfred Håversen <bsdlist_at_mumak.com>
Date: 2006-01-31 23:07:25 CET

Daniel Rall wrote:
> 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.

You could extend this to any change, including a reroll of the tarball. A MD5
sum of the tarball is commonly encoded into a port, and any changes in this
will stop the build.

/Sigfred

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Jan 31 23:09:00 2006

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