[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: 1.7.0

From: Simon Large <simon.tortoisesvn_at_googlemail.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 15:29:49 +0000

On 13 February 2010 15:17, Jean-Marc van Leerdam
<j.m.van.leerdam_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 13 February 2010 15:27, Ulf Zibis <Ulf.Zibis_at_gmx.de> wrote:
>> +1
>>
>> May be call it 1.6.10.
>> (Example: When Sun's Java SDK had a big enhancement, they jumped from
>> 1.6u7 directly to 1.6u10)
>>
>> ... and later 1.6.18 when linked against SVN 1.6.8
>> Or: 1.6.100 ... 1.6.108
>>
>>  > There is certainly precedent for *not* staying in sync.
>> - "1000 flies won't be in error"  IOW: others should follow TSVN's good
>> example
>> - TSVN users are used to have the versions synched since long, so they
>> probably would be more irritated and astonished than others.
>>
>>  > TortoiseHG 0.9.3 links against Mercurial 1.4.3
>>  > TortoiseGit 1.3.x uses gitdll 1.6.x
>>  > TortoiseCVS 1.10.x uses CVS 1.11.x
>>
>> This could express, that those T versions are in delay, offering ALL lib
>> features in their GUI.
>> ... but vice-versa doesn't make sense.
>>
>
> If you want to abandon the link between TSVN major and SVN major
> version (so no more TSVN 1.n == SVN 1.n), then I would suggest to go
> to TSVN 2.x and link to SVN 1.y. There should be no confusion then.

That would work, but 2.0 implies a big shiny new and completely
different version.

> Having a TSVN 1.7.x that links to SVN 1.6.y, and after that TSVN 1.8.n
> that will link to SVN 1.7.m will be confusing for an indefinite
> period.

I guess you're right.

> An alternative can be to temporarily lift the 'branch 1.x receives bug
> fixes only' rule until SVN is ready to release new versions more
> frequently again.

That also makes sense, but as we are essentially releasing from trunk,
which has not had that much public exposure, should we go through a
beta release cycle?

> I would go for 2.0 and disconnect the TSVN versioning scheme from the
> SVN releases.

I am happy to disconnect, but there is no new killer feature to
justify calling it 2.0. So I will go back on what I said before and go
with Alan and Ulf on 1.6.10. The only thing broken then is our stable
branch rule. It should probably be a fresh branch, so the branch
naming will have to be sorted out.

Simon

-- 
:       ___
:  oo  // \\      "De Chelonian Mobile"
: (_,\/ \_/ \     TortoiseSVN
:   \ \_/_\_/>    The coolest Interface to (Sub)Version Control
:   /_/   \_\     http://tortoisesvn.net
------------------------------------------------------
http://tortoisesvn.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=757&dsMessageId=2447289
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [dev-unsubscribe_at_tortoisesvn.tigris.org].
Received on 2010-02-13 16:29:59 CET

This is an archived mail posted to the TortoiseSVN Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.