On 2012-04-15 20:19, Stefan Küng wrote:
> On 15.04.2012 16:48, Oto BREZINA wrote:
>> On 2012-04-15 16:19, Oto BREZINA wrote:
>>> 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.
Do you know what problems? Like TSVN user reports their version of TSVN
instead of svn library? For what reason they report ?
If it is because of svn crash reported by TSVN, can we add version
number in report message?
>>>> 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:
>> After geting thru that mailing list.
>> What is real purpose of forth digit ? Usualy it is usefull to have there
>> revision when two branches let say 1.6.x and 17.x are maintaing at same
>> time to have kind of time stamp to compare relative date between them. I
>> don't think this is our siruation so we may remove forth number ?
>> If we can I would sugest go to 18.104.22.168 (or 22.214.171.124) as next release, and
>> increment 4th digit until svn 1.7.8 and get 126.96.36.199 (or 188.8.131.52).
> The fourth number is the svn revision of the build. It's important that
> this number increases with each build, otherwise the msi installer would
> not recognize that it's a new version and fail to work correctly.
You are telling that there can not be 184.108.40.206 and then 220.127.116.11 -
Otherwise MSI would not work correctly ? Then we are running into
trouble with revision 65536 :)
>> other note, maybe you remember this thread
>> There was quite interesting point. TSVN 1.7.0 had a lot of new awaited
>> features against 1.6.x. But we waited for svn to release them.
>> In this situation it may be ribbon, maybe editing of both panels in near
>> future. Will we wait with releasing again for svn 1.8 or change versioning?
> Since this time, svn should not take as much time to get to the next
> release (1.8), I think waiting for that isn't a bad idea.
Should not be.
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [dev-unsubscribe_at_tortoisesvn.tigris.org].
Received on 2012-04-16 09:02:18 CEST