On 2012-04-15 11:37, Stefan Küng wrote:
> Currently, the TSVN version is 1.7.6 while svn is at 1.7.4. So we're two
> micro versions apart.
> This apparently causes some problems on the svn mailing lists.
> It was suggested that svn therefore would skip two micro versions for
> their next release to catch up with TSVN, but that suggestion was
> rejected. Instead TSVN should instead change its version numbering to
> avoid confusion.
> The discussion on the svn dev list is here:
> So instead of our next release being 1.7.7, it would be 1.7.6-2 and when
> svn 1.7.7 gets out, we would be at 1.7.6-3, and finally with svn 1.7.8
> we then would also be at 1.7.8.
> I'm not sure if this won't cause problems for us, since our users are
> used to only three digit numbers and might overlook the '-2' when
> reporting issues.
> So what do you think? Should we change our version numbering? Or just go
> on as we did before?
I always thought that we need change version numbering, but never found
Best I can come with is multiple 3rd svn version by 100 adn add tsvn
"subversion" to it.
So 3 TSVN versions with svn 1.7.1 would be 1.7.100, 1.7.101, 1.7.102,
then 2 versions of TSVN with svn 1.7.2 1.7.201 and 1.7.2 1.7.202 or
1.7.203 and 1.7.204
However there is problem with svn 1.7.0.
-2 sounds ever better to me, but not sure if there is no limitation of 4
16bit int for versioning. Or there would be two versioning text and
Oto BREZINA, mob: +421 903 653 470
If I toppost I do it because:
* I don't have time to edit out irrelevant context and signatures
* I expect you to remember the context for my email messages
* I want you do the work to figure out what I said
* My time is more important than your time
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [dev-unsubscribe_at_tortoisesvn.tigris.org].
Received on 2012-04-15 16:19:56 CEST