On 19/09/2015 18:12, Stefan wrote:
> 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.
>>> 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
>>> 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.
> Some examples:
> 126.96.36.199 -> 188.8.131.52
> 184.108.40.206 -> 220.127.116.11
> 18.104.22.168 -> 22.214.171.124 (filename suffixed with -dev-rXXXXX)
> 126.96.36.199 -> 188.8.131.52
> 184.108.40.206 -> 220.127.116.11 (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
For reference: The change of the version numbering scheme is tracked in
MaxSVN's bugtracker under: http://www.luke1410.de:8090/browse/MAXSVN-11
Received on 2015-09-19 18:23:08 CEST
This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev