On Tue, 2006-01-31 at 14:37 -0800, Garrett Rooney wrote:
> > > No, thanks to the RCs that catch most of the problems. It would have
> > > been 1.3.1, though, instead of 1.3.0 (if I recall the series of events
> > > correctly).
> >
> > FWIW, isn't that what httpd does?
>
> I'm not positive about HTTPD, but APR does something like that. We've
> burned through two version numbers for the current APR release due to
> issues that were not caught until the tarballs were out there being
> tested. Not that it's a big deal though, version numbers are cheap
> ;-)
I think this is an error. Version numbers mean something to users, so
they aren't *that* cheap. Having the first 1.3 release of Subversion be
1.3.1 would have been confusing to some people, and falsely reassuring
to others (who avoid .0 releases out of conservatism).
So, I'm not 100% happy with a process that causes us to burn version
numbers when a tarball fails testing. In the past, I've advocated
naming the tarball something random when we post it, but apparently that
has technical issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Feb 2 18:28:49 2006