On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 10:14 PM, Stefan <luke1410_at_gmx.de> wrote:
> On 19/09/2015 22:00, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
...
>> Just another observation: on trunk we already put "1.10.0-dev (under
>> development)" as version tag (comes out of 'svn --version' if you
>> build from trunk). So it's not like we're not doing something like
>> this already. The real 1.10.0 final release will come after all
>> 1.10.0-dev builds. So on that grounds, there is some precedent for
>> numbering your versions like this (but we've not been spreading those
>> builds to a wider audience, setting this version as name of the
>> download package ...).
>
> So what is your suggesting then? I doubt that adding a "-dev" suffix to the
> version number (which is only recorded in the bugtracker and in the
> changelog) would actually solve ur underlying concerns, or would it? If so,
> I certainly can do that.
>
> But I guess the concern lies deeper here and you don't want any distribution
> being made available to a wider audience of those versions which you haven't
> released yet. Am I reading that correctly between the lines? If so, I guess
> there is no point in further advancing the MaxSVN idea here, because it
> would basically mean that it's not adding much to the already existing
> distributions.
No, that's not what I meant at all. Stop reading between the lines
:-). I like your efforts to bring early builds to a wider (developer /
expert / ...) audience. I think it's a good thing.
I was just trying to say that we've already had "1.10.0-dev" in our
own "version tag" (ever since branching 1.9.x), but that we've never
had to think about this because we weren't distributing it. You've put
us in a new situation, but that's not a bad thing :-). How to name the
binary package that you're putting up for download ... without
creating confusion.
--
Johan
Received on 2015-09-19 22:48:49 CEST