Andreas Schulz wrote: > First, my apology to Stephen - I didn't surely intend to interfere > with your release policy for congruity, but I just needed a new version, > and mindlessly decided that I would do well enough to it to deserve > a new major number. > Since I already told everyone around here to please ignore my > congruity8+ stuff, I shifted down to fractional 7.x versions, > so my final word (for the time) is now called congruity 7.4 > (see follow-up message).
I think you missed the point. It wasn't the 8.x that was the problem. It was assigning a version number. If you call this 7.4, and he takes your patch and the 4 things in his local CVS and releases that as 7.4, now there's 2 7.4's out there. You are not responsible for releasing his code. The proper way to do this is to just send a patch which doesn't touch the version number - just like you would for libconcord or concordance. Stephen can then accept multiple patches and release when he feels the software is ready for a new release. Think of it this way - what if every patch to the linux kernel bumped it's version number up? We'd have linux 10billion. If, in some rare scenario, you *need* to change the version number (of which this case is not one of them), then the acceptable way to do that would be simply to define the version as 7.3+schulz1 or something like that. However, most people are likely to reject patches that change version numbers, so this should really be only for local testing, for example, to ensure code looking at minimum version numbers was functioning. > I have been busy this week (as long as I wasn't stuck at the TV > watching the Europe soccer championships..) switching back and > forth between WindowsXP and LINUX to get both concordance and > congruity sources finally working in both environments, adding > a few features and fixing some remaining bugs, removing warnings > by Visual C++ and trying to document the build process (and its > traps) for Windows. This is fantastic! We have (as I'm sure you've seen), lots of Windows users very stuck on the build process. As with everything else though, I'd prefer to see this in the form of a patch - both for the sln/windows build files and for the READMEs. (P.S. the Euro cup stuff here in Zurich is *insane*) > (tried .ZIP first, but apparently sourceforge doesn't like ZIP > attachments...) Sounds great! I'm really excited about this effort. Unfortunately I still haven't had a chance to review it at all. My apologies for that, but spare time for me is still probably another 2 weeks out. I haven't forgotten though - it's at the top of my TODO-when-I-have-2-moments-free list. -- Phil Dibowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] Open Source software and tech docs Insanity Palace of Metallica http://www.phildev.net/ http://www.ipom.com/ "Never write it in C if you can do it in 'awk'; Never do it in 'awk' if 'sed' can handle it; Never use 'sed' when 'tr' can do the job; Never invoke 'tr' when 'cat' is sufficient; Avoid using 'cat' whenever possible" -- Taylor's Laws of Programming
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------- Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php
_______________________________________________ concordance-devel mailing list concordance-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/concordance-devel
