On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 11:35 PM, Stefan <luke1...@gmx.de> wrote: > 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?
Yes, I think so (but I can't speak for the others of course). Putting my user-hat back on, I can see that it can be a tad annoying that you can't see at a glance that 1.8.x-dev-r1701493-1 is pre or post 1.8.14-1, but I guess that can be solved best by describing it on the web-page (and maybe with help of ordering given on your website). BTW, thanks for doing this, I think it's very useful work (especially since building SVN on Windows is so hard). And thanks for your patience in talking these details through with the dev community. -- Johan
