On 15.02.2010 23:00, Stefan Fuhrmann wrote:
> On 14 Feb 2010 19:47:04, Stefan Küng wrote:
>>
>> In the thread with subject "1.7.0", there wasn't really a consensus.
>> Well, nobody objected to a release with new features, but there was
>> quite a controversy about what version number to use for this. None of
>> the suggestions really got a consensus.
>>
> Well, a few hours on a weekend may not be enough to
> reach a consensus on such a seemingly sensitive topic ;)
I didn't expect that. But the discussion doesn't seem to get even close
to a consensus but only to two different 'solutions' which are incompatible.
> But as Simon pointed out, there is at least some progress
> in the discussion. As of now, there are two proposals
> being considered:
>
> * 1.6 R2
> The number on the third level is almost a technical detail
> that might not be relevant to most users (see Windows 5.0,
> 5.1 and 5.2). Challenge: make the "R2" part as unmistakable
> as possible.
>
> * year-based versioning
> Minor details like 2010 vs. 10 have not yet decided upon.
> Personally, I have no preference here for 2010.0, 10.0,
> 2010.3 or 10.3 (3 is for the month).
>
> Iff we can address the challenge of the first variant, it would
> probably be the one that is closed to our past scheme.
>>
>> So I think the only way to solve this problem is to merge the changes we
>> did to make TSVN work better on Win7 back to the 1.6.x branch and have
>> it released there.
>>
> I assumed that this wasn't possible - at least not w/o breaking
> w2k compatibility. A "normal" bug fix release is, of course, the
> best solution.
It's possible if we don't merge all Win7 changes but only the most
relevant ones. There are a few changes that are incompatible with Win2k,
but we don't need to merge those (or we could rewrite those to use
dynamic linking, but that's something I really don't like to do).
>> Since the Win7 changes are really the only changes that are important
>> (users can live quite well without the other new features, even though
>> they're great), we can keep the current version numbering scheme and
>> avoid any confusion a new scheme might cause.
>>
> But perhaps, we should try to reach a consensus on an alternate
> versioning scheme irrespectively. There is still the possibility of
> SVN 1.7 being delayed far into next year - despite my crystal
> ball estimation of late Q3. Having the *option* of intermediate
> releases would be desirable.
I agree. But I don't see how we can do that without confusing users or
upset them.
>> So I'll start merging the important Win7 changes to the 1.6.x branch
>> soon.
> Intended release with SVN 1.6.10 or earlier?
No plans for now. Let's see how long it takes svn to get to the 1.6.10
release - if it takes too long, we'll release sooner.
Stefan
--
___
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=2448136
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [dev-unsubscribe_at_tortoisesvn.tigris.org].
Received on 2010-02-16 19:25:11 CET