On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 2:31 PM, Blair Zajac <bl...@orcaware.com> wrote: > On 4/14/12 12:24 PM, Konstantin Kolinko wrote: >> >> 2012/4/12 Daniel Shahaf<danie...@apache.org>: >>> >>> We released 1.6.18 today and 1.7.4 just over a month ago. There are >>> a few useful items merged already, and STATUS has a truckload of pending >>> changes. >>> >>> Shall we roll 1.7.5 in two weeks from today? If we can clear STATUS and >>> roll next Thursday that's fine too, but I don't think we're in a hurry. >> >> >> Hi! >> >> I have a proposal: >> Skip several numbers and name the next release as "1.7.7". >> >> Justification: to align with TortoiseSVN, which is 1.7.6 now. >> >> There is a lot of "Subversion exception!" threads on users@ >> where TortoiseSVN version is visible. For example [1]. >> >> I think skipping those "already used" numbers will lessen confusion. > > > Since Subversion is the base project, I would rather see TortoiseSVN change > it's versioning to match ours than the other way. TortoiseSVN could add an > additional version number after Subversion's, e.g. 1.7.4-tsvn1 for the first > TortoiseSVN release based on 1.7.4, 1.7.4-tsvn2 for the second, etc.
Agreed. Adapting Subversion version numbers to accomodate arbitrary downstream projects is a slippery slope toward madness. It feels like there is a reporting issue, more than a version number issue. -Hyrum -- uberSVN: Apache Subversion Made Easy http://www.uberSVN.com/
