[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: Debian Logic (was Re: What's the estimate delivery date of Subversion 1.2?)

From: Kevin Puetz <puetzk_at_puetzk.org>
Date: 2004-10-09 19:20:09 CEST

It's fairly common in debian to put a new upstream into 'experimental' for a
brief while, especially if the packaging scripts needed some changes. In
this case, it may also have been done because the maintainer wanted to let
1.0.8 make it from unstable to testing (ie, into the upcoming sarge
release), before replacing the version in unstable (which would have
restarted the shakedown period). So that's probably why it didn't go
directly into unstable.

<'unstable' vs 'testing'>
Normally, a package version must be in unstable for at least N amount of
time (varies according to various policies) without having bugs of severity
>= normal filed against it before it is allowed to propagate into testing.
Manual override is possible, but in this case since testing is about to
become sarge, exceptions to the rules are harder to come by.
</'unstable' vs 'testing'>

The name 1.0.8+1.1.0rc4-1 is a bit harder to justify; you want it to compare
as greater than 1.0.8-?, but less than 1.1.0-1 (which would normally the
number for the first full release into unstable). I think the more common
choice would have been to call it 1.1.0-0rc4 or similar (with the 0 version
putting it in the right place). The maintainer would have to be around to
answer that one, if the changelog doesn't make it clear :-)

Ross Boylan wrote:

> On Sat, Oct 09, 2004 at 11:36:12AM +0800, Alan Knowles wrote:
>> Getting a bit off topic -
>>
>> Does anyone know whats the logic behind calling the experimental release
>> 1.0.8+1.1.0rc4-1, what wrong with just releasing 1.1.0? - it's beyond
>> confusing (and since subversion is such a brease to build - thanks to
>> some very good code), I dont usually use the packages, (although it
>> would be nice to..)
>>
>> Regards
>> Alan
>>
> My, that does seem obscure. At a guess, it's 1.0.8 + some code
> from later. Further guess: there was concern that 1.1, since it has
> big changes, might have some brokenness.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Oct 9 19:20:31 2004

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Users mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.