[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: [RFC] Show version number as "1.7.0-dev" not "1.7.0 (dev build)"

From: Julian Foad <julian.foad_at_wandisco.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 13:41:02 +0000

On Mon, 2011-03-21, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 05:38, Julian Foad <julian.foad_at_wandisco.com> wrote:
> > A user wrote to dev@ today:
> >> I have now taken the plunge and moved to using version 1.7 tsvn for my
> >> development.
> >>
> >> After updating one of my working copies from 1.6 using TortoiseSVN
> >> from 2011/03/20 subversion 1.7.0 r1082999 [...]
> >
> > I don't know the whole chain of communication or miscommunication that
> > led to this user saying he's using "1.7" and "1.7.0", but I do suspect
> > that where we report the version:
> >
> > $ svn --version
> > svn, version 1.7.0 (dev build)
> > [...]
> >
> > people could easily interpret "(dev build)" as "and, by the way, this
> > copy is built with debugging symbols and/or other stuff that's useful
> > for developers".
> >
> > I think it would make sense to change the output of "svn --version" to
> > display exactly the same "compact" version string that "--version
> > --quiet" gives, as well as a slightly more user-facing explanatory note:
> >
> > $ svn --version
> > svn, version 1.7.0-dev (under development)
> > [...]
> >
> > The version string is then clearly "1.7.0-dev" rather than "1.7.0". I
> > think that's an obvious change that could only reduce the potential for
> > confusion from our side.
>
> +1

Done.

r1084575 changes "(dev build)" to "(under development)".

r1084581 adds "-dev" to the version number, by changing:

 /** Complete version string */
-#define SVN_VERSION SVN_VER_NUM SVN_VER_TAG
+#define SVN_VERSION SVN_VER_NUMBER SVN_VER_TAG

The results will be like these examples:

  svn, version 1.7.0-dev (under development)
  svn, version 1.7.0-alpha1 (Alpha 1)
  svn, version 1.7.0 (r12345)

The first of these shows the desired result. The third one is unchanged
and is fine and correct as it is.

In the second of these examples, the "Alpha 1" text has become redundant
and could better say something like "(under test)" instead. I haven't
done that. (If someone wants to, that text is inserted by the release
scripts and is not present in the checked-in header files and source
code.)

I don't believe there's any compatibility concern with changing the
expansion of these public macros in this way, but please feel free to
revert or fix if there is as I'll be away.

- Julian
Received on 2011-03-23 14:41:41 CET

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.