On 19/09/2015 22:48, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 10:14 PM, Stefan <luke1...@gmx.de> wrote:
On 19/09/2015 22:00, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
...
So what is your suggesting then? I doubt that adding a "-dev" suffix to the
version number (which is only recorded in the bugtracker and in the
changelog) would actually solve ur underlying concerns, or would it? If so,
I certainly can do that.
But I guess the concern lies deeper here and you don't want any distribution
being made available to a wider audience of those versions which you haven't
released yet. Am I reading that correctly between the lines? If so, I guess
there is no point in further advancing the MaxSVN idea here, because it
would basically mean that it's not adding much to the already existing
distributions.
No, that's not what I meant at all. Stop reading between the lines
:-). I like your efforts to bring early builds to a wider (developer /
expert / ...) audience. I think it's a good thing.
;-) - so gonna try to stop that habit (aka: reading between lines), but
no promises I succeed
I was just trying to say that we've already had "1.10.0-dev" in our
own "version tag" (ever since branching 1.9.x), but that we've never
had to think about this because we weren't distributing it. You've put
us in a new situation, but that's not a bad thing :-). How to name the
binary package that you're putting up for download ... without
creating confusion.
So the suggestion would be to use the scheme based on Branko's, Bert's,
Ivan's and Evgeny's suggestions:
MaxSVN 1.7.22.1 -> MaxSVN 1.7.22-1
MaxSVN 1.7.22.2 -> MaxSVN 1.7.22-2
MaxSVN 1.8.14.1 -> MaxSVN 1.8.14-1
MaxSVN 1.8.15.1 -> MaxSVN 1.8.x-dev-r1701493-1
MaxSVN 1.10.0.1 -> MaxSVN trunk-dev-r1697405-1
MaxSVN 1.10.0.2 -> MaxSVN trunk-dev-r1701565-1
Would that cover ur concerns you raised too?
Regards,
Stefan
