On 19/09/2015 16:58, Evgeny Kotkov wrote:
> Stefan Hett <luke1410_at_gmx.de> writes:
>> You are absolutely right here and I should have seen that before. Didn't
>> take that (obvious) point into account at all.
>> I'll come-up with a working version scheme which won't have potential for
>> causing this misinterpretation and will make sure that the next releases
>> will use that other scheme.
>> Think the solution will either be to restart my own version numbering which
>> is completely independent from SVN's or go with the alternative you
> Thank you :)
So I'm going to stick with the current version numbering layout (since
that's the easiest IMO) but will shift all the version numbers and rely
on the naming of the download files and the changelog to point out which
SVN version builds are based on.
184.108.40.206 -> 220.127.116.11
18.104.22.168 -> 22.214.171.124
126.96.36.199 -> 188.8.131.52 (filename suffixed with -dev-rXXXXX)
184.108.40.206 -> 220.127.116.11
18.104.22.168 -> 22.214.171.124 (filename suffixed with -dev-rXXXXX)
That way there should not be any risk that builds are mistaken for not
yet released SVN versions, everything still works out with the current
MaxSVN build plan and it still preserves the ideas from Bert/Ivan to add
pointers to revision numbers/dev-build-markers in the distribution files.
Received on 2015-09-19 18:12:46 CEST
This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev