Greg Hudson wrote:
> 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.
>
IIRC the only issue is that if you sign such a randomly-named file, the
signature isn't valid for the correctly-named file. Well, people whose
signatures count can rename the tarball locally before signing it.
-- Brane
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Feb 2 18:37:23 2006