Mailing-List: contact users-help@subversion.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of andy.levy@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.220.52 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CACZYS+ry0FS4YdDYEOnSDTWCJuK0Ve=6DVjixuphu=BVkSGoFA@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CACZYS+q1V5G8XRP6NtCvH1u9QBnffR5ze1TDjt3DfD2ohJ5+Bw@mail.gmail.com>
 <043e01cf95e0$bd56f7c0$3804e740$@qqmail.nl>
 <CACZYS+q8Y_3BuBfCBA0ToYV86Pjj=vUr7e5v3Y5HJUkxON62Qg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACZYS+p-8rXdD+dijmst_d1YnZZ7UVmE7R8jtzrQ-0-+fXZ46A@mail.gmail.com>
 <53B525AD.903@wandisco.com>
 <CACZYS+peD6Sj4v1_50+mDcgh8tBri7J2VsPcsV8TXJ71nSXxJQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20140703154731.GB2400@larry.stsp.name>
 <CACZYS+qMOH97e7fHahC4NnRJhpwphf617vDaP+2s=y0agdVUpA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHFaGCpaV7+irSBwDck34eq9EVewFY0K+wLQ_xfX_e8k5sCzNw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACZYS+qwUHjLwqf5HTcwaq61fCgpEgSU+hk3sGksP=6rUCWcCg@mail.gmail.com>
 <9775EDB6-9D6F-4510-8061-E5AE79612659@gmail.com>
 <CACZYS+pv=tWgd1cgKwioP_NyMneNi=r=0__LDbX7e-dzcqkw+g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALb=wnmPHR-Q3FazTTCAPs7S0t9cZQy+aExkiB6XNk4ro2LGpA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACZYS+ry0FS4YdDYEOnSDTWCJuK0Ve=6DVjixuphu=BVkSGoFA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Andy Levy <andy.levy@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2014 09:45:26 -0400
Message-ID: 
 <CALb=wn=kBTo57xj2KY9SnxeGQCjPMho3O80fuesUWUzth1x2cA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Extend E155021 message to include supported format version
To: Notes Jonny <jongmob@gmail.com>
Cc: Mark Phippard <markphip@gmail.com>,
 =?UTF-8?Q?Branko_=C4=8Cibej?= <brane@wandisco.com>,
	"users@subversion.apache.org" <users@subversion.apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 9:40 AM, Notes Jonny <jongmob@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 4:51 PM, Andy Levy <andy.levy@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Notes Jonny <jongmob@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi Mark
>>>
>>> You are right that I did have 1.8.x installed. Which I downgraded to
>>> this version:
>>>
>>> TortoiseSVN 1.7.7, Build 22907 - 32 Bit , 2012/05/15 12:16:05
>>> Subversion 1.7.5,
>>> apr 1.4.6
>>> apr-utils 1.3.12
>>> neon 0.29.6
>>> OpenSSL 1.0.1c 10 May 2012
>>> zlib 1.2.7
>>>
>>> NB. I don't know why tortoise is called 1.7.7 and subversion uses
>>> 1.7.5 - would be simpler if they matched.
>>
>> TortoiseSVN release 1.7.7 is built on Subversion version 1.7.5.
>> Because there may be bugs in TSVN that aren't present in the
>> Subversion libraries, there may be multiple TSVN releases for a given
>> version of the Subversion libraries.
>>
>> For example, TSVN 1.7.2, 1.7.3 & 1.7.4 were all built on Subversion
>> 1.7.2; TSVN 1.7.2 had some nasty bugs that needed to be resolved
>> quickly (and 1.7.3 had one more). From the release announcement for
>> 1.7.3[1]:
>>
>> Due to some nasty bugs in TortoiseSVN 1.7.2 which in some specific
>> situations could make it crash, we're releasing this version out of sync
>> with SVN releases.
>>
>> 1.7.4 had another bug that needed quick resolution[2].
>>
>> The alternatives I can think of offhand are:
>>
>> 1) Only release TSVN in lock-step with Subversion releases, leaving
>> TSVN bugs hanging in the wild unnecessarily long
>> 2) Don't publish the library versions used in TSVN. This makes
>> debugging & error reporting tougher
>> 3) Don't bump the TSVN version number. This makes support tougher -
>> are we using the first release of 1.7.5 or the second one?
>> 4) Add yet another level to the version number scheme? 1.7.5.0, 1.7.5.1, etc.?
>>
>> The current scheme is fine IMHO.
>>
>> [1]: http://tortoisesvn.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=4061&dsMessageId=2894038
>> [2]: http://tortoisesvn.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=4061&dsMessageId=2908607
>
> Hello
>
> Many thanks for the replies.
>
> It sounds like the TortoseSVN team want to keep things roughly "lock
> step", I think better to be "completely lock step".
>
> I would go with: TortoiseSVN_1.7.5_Build001
>
> Just increment the Build number when they make an updated delivery of
> TortiseSVN that uses svn1.7.5
>
> Its more confusing to use a similar but different numbering scheme
> (1.7.7 and 1.7.5) in my view.

I personally see nothing wrong or confusing about the system the TSVN
folks have settled on. If anything, I think your suggestion would lead
to more confusion, having to ask people *which* 1.7.5 they're using.
What do you mean, 1.7.5 doesn't always mean the same thing?

If you'd like to lobby for a change, you'll need to take it to the
TSVN mailing list; how TortoiseSVN is managed seems to be quite
off-topic on the SVN Users mailing list.