On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 11:35 PM, Stefan <luke1410_at_gmx.de> wrote:
> 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
>>> version number (which is only recorded in the bugtracker and in the
>>> changelog) would actually solve ur underlying concerns, or would it? If
>>> I certainly can do that.
>>> But I guess the concern lies deeper here and you don't want any
>>> being made available to a wider audience of those versions which you
>>> released yet. Am I reading that correctly between the lines? If so, I
>>> 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 126.96.36.199 -> MaxSVN 1.7.22-1
> MaxSVN 188.8.131.52 -> MaxSVN 1.7.22-2
> MaxSVN 184.108.40.206 -> MaxSVN 1.8.14-1
> MaxSVN 220.127.116.11 -> MaxSVN 1.8.x-dev-r1701493-1
> MaxSVN 18.104.22.168 -> MaxSVN trunk-dev-r1697405-1
> MaxSVN 22.214.171.124 -> MaxSVN trunk-dev-r1701565-1
> Would that cover ur concerns you raised too?
Yes, I think so (but I can't speak for the others of course).
Putting my user-hat back on, I can see that it can be a tad annoying
that you can't see at a glance that 1.8.x-dev-r1701493-1 is pre or
post 1.8.14-1, but I guess that can be solved best by describing it on
the web-page (and maybe with help of ordering given on your website).
BTW, thanks for doing this, I think it's very useful work (especially
since building SVN on Windows is so hard). And thanks for your
patience in talking these details through with the dev community.
Received on 2015-09-20 00:01:16 CEST