On 2010-02-14 15:56, Simon Large wrote:
> On 14 February 2010 08:03, Oto BREZINA<otik_at_e-posta.sk> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I read most of post till now I would like too 1.6 to be kept.
>> But I agree that different numbering is needed even 1.6.11, was my first
>> idea.
>> What about 1.6.1.0 (1.6.1.8) ? In this way 1.6.x an 1.6.1.x can be
>> supported together till 1.7.
>>
> How do you include the revision number? 1.6.1.8.18756?
> I think this is even more confusing.
>
Why we need revision number ?
>> Backside is what is newer 1.6.7 or 1.6.1.0 ? This question leeds me to
>> other suggestion 1.6.7.1 like 1.6.x.1.
>> In fact there are no new lib features, there are "only" new GUI functions.
>>
> And so is this.
>
> There are ways to keep the numbering in sync, but they tend to be
> confusing. But more importantly the new release will no longer support
> Win2K, and we should never make such a big change with the same
> major.minor numbers.
>
versions 1.6.x supports W2K-Vista
versions 1.6.1.x (as alternative to a 1.6b)supports XP, Vista, 7
Ok there is 1.6.1.16129 which put some confusion here.
I see some backsides - that was my two cents ...
> And we actually *want* to break sync.
>
Not sure. But for now we don't find any other options...
Simons ideas:
tsvn.svn.bugfix.rev sound good to me
and yearmonth.svn.bugfix.rev too
Oto
------------------------------------------------------
http://tortoisesvn.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=757&dsMessageId=2447458
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [dev-unsubscribe_at_tortoisesvn.tigris.org].
Received on 2010-02-14 19:47:23 CET