On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 10:14 PM, Stefan <luke1...@gmx.de> wrote: > On 19/09/2015 22:00, Johan Corveleyn wrote: ... >> Just another observation: on trunk we already put "1.10.0-dev (under >> development)" as version tag (comes out of 'svn --version' if you >> build from trunk). So it's not like we're not doing something like >> this already. The real 1.10.0 final release will come after all >> 1.10.0-dev builds. So on that grounds, there is some precedent for >> numbering your versions like this (but we've not been spreading those >> builds to a wider audience, setting this version as name of the >> download package ...). > > 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. 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. -- Johan
