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
>>> 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.
>
> ;-) - 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 1.7.22.1 -> MaxSVN 1.7.22-1
> MaxSVN 1.7.22.2 -> MaxSVN 1.7.22-2
> MaxSVN 1.8.14.1 -> MaxSVN 1.8.14-1
> MaxSVN 1.8.15.1 -> MaxSVN 1.8.x-dev-r1701493-1
> MaxSVN 1.10.0.1 -> MaxSVN trunk-dev-r1697405-1
> MaxSVN 1.10.0.2 -> 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.
--
Johan
Received on 2015-09-20 00:01:16 CEST