cool! :)
btw, you're not agreeing with me, you're agreeing with SVN philosophy and
with O'Reilly's book :D
about your idea you PMed me, releasing a 0.95.90 version as the RC...
yeah... might work... but would be too confusing for the users... I
suggest to keep it 0.96RC1 but maybe have a
set ::version "0.96RC1"
set ::rc_version "0.95.90"
in autoupdate {
set version $::version
if [info exists ::rc_version] set version $::rc_version
..
}
so, one internal rc version for the autoupdater only, completly
transparent to the user...
makes it easier for all of us.. as I said, the software should work it
out, not the user try not to get confused...
what do you think ?
KKRT
On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 13:49:43 -0400, Sander Hoentjen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> /me ducks
> sorry, i was wrong, brains were overworked or something. We should do
> the tag yes. Also I agree with the rest of your email about everybody
> working in trunk and big changes go in branches, so not everybody has to
> commit his changes twice..
>
> On Thu, 2006-06-15 at 10:37 -0400, Youness Alaoui wrote:
>> what is wrong with you ? why have a 'poll' on wether we should create a
>> tag or not!!!!
>> First, we MUST create a tag, it's 100% normal, it's the best way to keep
>> track of what we are doing.. imagine in 1 year or 2, we'd have made so
>> many changes to SVN, so many new branches, so many backports of bugs to
>> older branches, etc... then when we want to get the rc2 for example, we
>> won't be able to do it ? everyone works with branches and tags, and
>> that's
>> how it is!
>> you are saying that it's pointless, now, how about, in 3 years, someone
>> says he has a huge bug in 0.96, but it's not appearing in 0.96 rc2, and
>> it
>> was something specific to his pc, noone else on earth could have that
>> bug... but in 0.96 he also had a bugfix for something else, so he wants
>> us
>> to break the bugfix which creates his bug, and to port again the bugfix
>> that he wants back into the rc2 version... best way is to get rc2, and
>> patch it... "now, let me think.. humm. was 0.96rc2 revision 6891 or
>> 6981... damn, if only, back then, 3 years ago, they decided to create a
>> tag... :( "
>> you know what, why don't YOU give me a GOOD reason for NOT creating a
>> tag???
>> don't forget how SVN works, a whole copy of the repo, a tag or a branch
>> or
>> whatever takes NO space in the repo, so we don't care about the space...
>>
>> p.s.: every company that releases software creates a tag/label for every
>> build they make, even if it's 100 builds... take a look at :
>> http://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc/mediawiki/ to see how branches and tags
>> should be used...
>>
>> Next time, we'll make it the right way, we will branch for specific
>> features (example, clgui branch, or amsncore branch) for every big
>> feature
>> we want to implement, instead of branching the next production (0.96)
>> branch.. so the trunk/ is the development.. this means that, we would
>> work
>> on the trunk/ for everything, if we want to modify something huge, we
>> creater a branch, we WON'T need to backport our changes from the trunk/
>> to
>> that branch, what we'll do, is once that feature is done and complete,
>> etc... we'll tell SVN to merge the two branches together, so that new
>> developed feature gets integrated into the trunk/ automatically. Once we
>> RELEASE, we create a branch for that release, and we'll do commits in
>> that
>> branch ONLY if we need to backport a fix for a custom build or for a new
>> 'bugfix' version (for a critical bug for example)..
>> example, the proxy thing, a huge problem, we had to release 0.96 because
>> of that, if we used what I just described (the svn philosophy), we would
>> have taken the 0.95 branch, applies the proxy fix on it, modifies the SF
>> mirror for downloading tls, and released 0.95.1 with only these two
>> fixes... without the need to force a release of 0.96
>> anyways.. gtg
>>
>> KKRT
>>
>>
>> KKRT
>>
>> On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 09:26:44 -0400, Jonne Zutt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Shouldn't we make a tag of branches/0_96 now (called tags/0_96_1) ?
>> > I think so, because if we commit to 0_96 after the release, we cannot
>> > know what exactly was 0.96.1 in the repository anymore.
>> > And I think that is what Sander meant.
>> > And, iirc, it doesn't consume much repository space, as it is stored
>> > quite clever.
>> >
>> > After reviewing and committing changes between the branch and trunk,
>> > the diff between branch and trunk is almost empty now.
>> >
>> > Why did we create the branches/0_96 in the first place? Was the idea,
>> > stop implementing new features so we can release? (that would be good
>> I
>> > think) Or am I missing something?
>> >
>> > Jonne.
>> >
>> >> > 3) do we create a tag for this release in svn? (A tag and a branch
>> > are
>> >> > the same in svn, technically) So does it have any benefits to
>> create
>> > a
>> >> > tag, when we already have a 0.96 branch, which we can check out by
>> >> > revision number, if bugfixes later are done in this branch.
>> >>
>> >> Make a tag on the main branch? That is pointless because that isnt
>> the
>> > 0.96,
>> >> and we arent going to be integrating changes (accept for bugfixes if
>> > we plan
>> >> to release a 0.96.1). So I think we don't need to tag it.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Amsn-devel mailing list
>> > Amsn-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
>> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/amsn-devel
>>
>>
>>
--
KaKaRoTo
_______________________________________________
Amsn-devel mailing list
Amsn-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/amsn-devel
