On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 2:31 PM, Blair Zajac <blair_at_orcaware.com> wrote:
> On 4/14/12 12:24 PM, Konstantin Kolinko wrote:
>>
>> 2012/4/12 Daniel Shahaf<danielsh_at_apache.org>:
>>>
>>> We released 1.6.18 today and 1.7.4 just over a month ago. There are
>>> a few useful items merged already, and STATUS has a truckload of pending
>>> changes.
>>>
>>> Shall we roll 1.7.5 in two weeks from today? If we can clear STATUS and
>>> roll next Thursday that's fine too, but I don't think we're in a hurry.
>>
>>
>> Hi!
>>
>> I have a proposal:
>> Skip several numbers and name the next release as "1.7.7".
>>
>> Justification: to align with TortoiseSVN, which is 1.7.6 now.
>>
>> There is a lot of "Subversion exception!" threads on users@
>> where TortoiseSVN version is visible. For example [1].
>>
>> I think skipping those "already used" numbers will lessen confusion.
>
>
> Since Subversion is the base project, I would rather see TortoiseSVN change
> it's versioning to match ours than the other way. TortoiseSVN could add an
> additional version number after Subversion's, e.g. 1.7.4-tsvn1 for the first
> TortoiseSVN release based on 1.7.4, 1.7.4-tsvn2 for the second, etc.
Agreed. Adapting Subversion version numbers to accomodate arbitrary
downstream projects is a slippery slope toward madness.
It feels like there is a reporting issue, more than a version number issue.
-Hyrum
--
uberSVN: Apache Subversion Made Easy
http://www.uberSVN.com/
Received on 2012-04-14 21:40:38 CEST