> 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.
I'm not at all for burning version numbers. I have advocated using .0a for
the second release. This has hit some emotional barriers back when we were
about to release 1.3.0, as well as it did yesterday on IRC when I re-raised
the issue.
Though .0a may be meaningless to users, it'd be apparent to everybody (I'd
guess) that .0c is the version to use when you have to choose from .0a, .0b
and .0c...
Those are my 0.02 euros.
Bye,
Erik.
--
Lust, ein paar Euro nebenbei zu verdienen? Ohne Kosten, ohne Risiko!
Satte Provisionen für GMX Partner: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/partner
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Feb 2 21:14:06 2006