On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 05:18:35PM +0100, David Anderson wrote:
> Gaghh. Talk about a stupid, stupid way to burn a version number
> :-(. If I remember the discussions about it all, next tarballs I post
> are going to be 1.3.2 ?
>
Hacking say:
If a release or candidate release needs to be quickly re-issued due to
some non-code problem (say, a packaging glitch), it's okay to reuse
the same name, as long as the tarball hasn't been blessed by signing
yet. But if it has been uploaded to the standard distribution area with
signatures, or if the re-issue was due to a change in code a user might
run, then the old name must be tossed and the next name used.
I'd say that including the wrong version of Neon is a packaging glitch,
not a change to the Subversion code itself. I'm not sure what the
missing APR files problem is due to, but it smells like packaging as well.
So I guess you should stick with 1.3.1. It's not like it was even around
long enough to attract a single signature.
Regards,
Malcolm
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Mar 14 17:29:44 2006