[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: Peter N. Lundblad <peter_at_famlundblad.se>
Date: 2006-01-31 23:13:02 CET

On Tue, 31 Jan 2006, 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.
+1. I like a simple policy. Hopefully such trivial packaging errors
should be rare enough that this is not a big deal.


To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Jan 31 23:15:34 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.