On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 10:36 PM, Stefan Fuhrmann
<stefanfuhrmann_at_alice-dsl.de> wrote:
> Stefan Küng wrote on 13 Feb 2010 11:04:42:
>>
>> In the past, we shipped a new major release of TortoiseSVN in sync with
>> the svn library. But now, the svn library won't have another major
>> release for a long time, maybe not until the end of this year [1].
>>
> My crystal ball says October. Just for the record ;)
> As this would still about 6 months away, an intermediate
> TSVN release would have a lifetime in line with the
> intended SVN release frequency of twice a year.
>>
>> Since there are already a lot of new features in the TSVN trunk, I'd
>> like to discuss if we should ship TSVN 1.7.0 soon but still have it link
>> against svn 1.6.x.
>>
> Personally, I would not release "just for the features"
> if the resulting version numbering scheme causes confusion.
>>
>> Sure, most users can live without the new features in TSVN, but there
>> are some changes which make it work better on Win7, and with many users
>> switching to that new OS it would benefit them a lot if they had those
>> adjustments/enhancements in TSVN.
>>
> IMO, that is the major point. We need to release Win7-
> "fixes". Those, however, break backward compatibility
> with W2K, for instance. 1.6.8 would definitely not be the
> place to do something like that.
>>
>> So what do you think?
>>
> The whole version numbering issue is very sensitive.
>
> De facto, TSVN releases are linked to SVN releases:
> We will certainly continue our policy to ship TSVN with
> the latest SVN libs. That means roughly a 2-month
> release cycle for fixes. Updating more frequently than
> that would certainly annoy users.
>
> The other question is features. IOW, should more of
> our releases be feature releases? Probably yes, and
> probably at the rate SVN originally intended to release
> (say, every 4 to 6 months). Again, even more frequent
> feature releases might do more harm than good.
>
> Back to numbering. 1.7.0 would probably send the
> worst of signals possible:
>
> * SVN devs may feel abandoned / left behind and
> that at a point when they seem to take action towards
> their own 1.7 release. Remember Greg's reaction on
> your "when will wc-ng be usable?" post?
I doubt other svn devs will feel left behind if TSVN does a new minor
release while sticking with the 1.6.x libraries. Don't see why a
library should dictate the release schedule of the applications using
that library.
Personally I respect you guys for the continuous improvements you keep
making to an already great product.
> * Users will assume that TSVN 1.7 finally comes with
> the SVN 1.7 features and will be disappointed
> ("obviously, SVN is stuck. Time to change").
Possibly.
> * Users will be confused in the beginning and be
> annoyed later on. ("what is the matching tool set
> to install? I hate that. They obviously lost focus.
> Time to change").
More likely. The TSVN version numbering has been aligned with svn
version numbering for so long that any change here will be very
confusing.
Especially in an enterprise environment, where people are using
Subclipse, JavaHL, SVNKit, TortoiseSVN and the command line tools all
on the same working copies.
[..]
>
> My preferred solution would be switching to an
> entirely different scheme: Make the initial release
> year the main version number, i.e. "2010.0.0".
> People are used to that scheme and it would
> clearly signal independent versioning with saying
> "detachment".
My (non-binding) +1 goes to this proposal. I think it's the least
confusing of the available options.
[..]
Good luck with the release.
Lieven
------------------------------------------------------
http://tortoisesvn.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=757&dsMessageId=2447430
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [dev-unsubscribe_at_tortoisesvn.tigris.org].
Received on 2010-02-14 16:50:23 CET