Re: Releasing 1.6

"C. Michael Pilato" <cmpilato_at_collab.net> wrote on 08/08/2008 08:27:20 AM:
[snip]

> So, I am (and have been) struggling very hard to see a meaningful
difference
> between what is being proposed here, and what we did in the past. I see

> people with direct experience in dealing with vendor releases speaking
in
> favor of what Mark and Senthil are trying to do, and I see people citing

> zero relevant experience with the same speaking against it.

If the changes are server only changes, I think confusion will be minimal.

If the changes are client libs as well, things will get a lot more
confusing. I.E. what should TortoiseSVN link against? Will Collabnet
provide multiple modified clients for their customers as well? How
will they be named, versioned, and released?

The Collabnet beta binaries were nice, but they were in fact just
early releases, not containing features that potentially won't
be merged into a future release. (I have no reason to believe
they wouldn't be merged eventually though...)

There is already a fair amount of confusion in the user community
that are considering the Collabnet binaries "official". (Based
on the complaints about requiring registration).

Would Collabnet now provide "unmodified" binary releases along
with their "enhanced" binary releases? Only their "enhanced"
binaries? Nothing at all?

I guess I'd like more details on when Collabnet wants/needs
a release with new functionality. I'm making an assumption
that the changes they want/need require API and or WC format
changes, which is why 1.6 is being discussed...

Kevin R.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-08-08 15:57:01 CEST