Mailing-List: contact dev-help@subversion.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <55FDD515.7050406@gmx.de>
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2015 23:35:17 +0200
From: Stefan <luke1410@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64;
 rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Johan Corveleyn <jcorvel@gmail.com>
CC: Bert Huijben <bert@qqmail.nl>,
 Evgeny Kotkov <evgeny.kotkov@visualsvn.com>,
 Ivan Zhakov <ivan@visualsvn.com>,
 Subversion Development <dev@subversion.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Announcing MaxSVN
References: <55EDB187.5070201@gmx.de>
 <CABw-3YdChhqkc0F7xd0w50rpU+rj-gi3WxKN5Q-Adri_pyB23g@mail.gmail.com>
 <55F5F01D.2040003@gmx.de>
 <CABw-3YcS2xHAp6LvsBJ_0nMkK3KXPHvkjXtUFRdR0DLXLWrTpw@mail.gmail.com>
 <55F9ED6F.1060807@gmx.de>
 <CAP_GPNhAFzKAuFS8fa=voU9ZcNP3kYRpU0Uw8KfgJ9Zfq1r+rA@mail.gmail.com>
 <55FD3AB4.8060801@gmx.de>
 <CAP_GPNiAwQRM1-sx7ftcKPy_KhPKZgVO_D5sUjo6Hsvq_ATafg@mail.gmail.com>
 <55FD773B.1060205@gmx.de>
 <CAP_GPNhhBVRLrRoW-Ljcaa5DqjJt9QoO53h2uKBnZOh9p2tpLw@mail.gmail.com>
 <55FD8968.5050000@gmx.de> <55fdb7a2.4868b40a.80d2d.5f3a@mx.google.com>
 <55FDBB0F.5000301@gmx.de>
 <CAB84uBUcqwe=n0AF0tgTXhRAWRLnvFk2A6knbqL3Ea8VuQAYLg@mail.gmail.com>
 <55FDC21D.4090400@gmx.de>
 <CAB84uBU69sTxdVBcv2qrbsHYZfbLmLTKJECPDteMh_+Ro28Vaw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAB84uBU69sTxdVBcv2qrbsHYZfbLmLTKJECPDteMh_+Ro28Vaw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 19/09/2015 22:48, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 10:14 PM, Stefan <luke1410@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