On 19/09/2015 22:48, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 10:14 PM, Stefan <luke1410_at_gmx.de> wrote:
>> On 19/09/2015 22:00, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
>> 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
> 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.
;-) - so gonna try to stop that habit (aka: reading between lines), but
no promises I succeed
> 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.
So the suggestion would be to use the scheme based on Branko's, Bert's,
Ivan's and Evgeny's suggestions:
MaxSVN 220.127.116.11 -> MaxSVN 1.7.22-1
MaxSVN 18.104.22.168 -> MaxSVN 1.7.22-2
MaxSVN 22.214.171.124 -> MaxSVN 1.8.14-1
MaxSVN 126.96.36.199 -> MaxSVN 1.8.x-dev-r1701493-1
MaxSVN 188.8.131.52 -> MaxSVN trunk-dev-r1697405-1
MaxSVN 184.108.40.206 -> MaxSVN trunk-dev-r1701565-1
Would that cover ur concerns you raised too?
Received on 2015-09-19 23:35:45 CEST