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.
>>> 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
>>> presented.
>> 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:
> 1.7.22.1 -> 1.0.22.1
> 1.7.22.2 -> 1.0.22.2
> 1.9.1.1 -> 1.2.1.1 (filename suffixed with -dev-rXXXXX)
> 1.9.1.2 -> 1.2.1.2
> 1.10.0.1 -> 1.3.0.1 (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.
For reference: The change of the version numbering scheme is tracked in
MaxSVN's bugtracker under: http://www.luke1410.de:8090/browse/MAXSVN-11
Regards,
Stefan
Received on 2015-09-19 18:23:08 CEST