Branko Čibej <brane@xbc.nu> writes:
> > 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.
I think that would get us into a degree of complexity we don't want.
Simplicity is: you get handed an object, you test it, sign it, and
post your signature.
Complexity is: anything more than that :-).
Re Greg's comments: I'm not 100% happy either with a method that can
result in the first release in a series being something other than
".0". But I'm not 100% happy with the alternatives either, and at
least we can always put something in the release notes explaining what
happened, so those who bother to read the notes will not be confused.
-K
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Feb 2 19:02:20 2006