Branko Čibej wrote:
> 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.
AFAIK it is. You sign the content, not the name.
Sander
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Feb 2 19:36:23 2006