On 2/24/15, robotanarchy <robotanar...@bingo-ev.de> wrote: > Am Tue, 24 Feb 2015 12:04:06 -0500 > schrieb Ron W <ronw.m...@gmail.com>: > > >> But, in any case, Mr robotanarchy seems to be requesting that the >> official release tar file be created with, for example: >> >> fossil tarball version-1.31 fossil-src-1_31.tar.gz --name >> fossil-src-1_31 >> >> to make it easier to identify the released versions. > > > I'd replace the underscore with a dot, so it becomes > > fossil-1.31.tar.gz > > ..but other than that, that's my point. > > Can you guys do that? >
We can call things whatever we want. It's just a name. The question is "Why?". Fossil's trunk is usually stable enough for everyday use. Indeed, the self-hosting server for Fossil, as well as the repos for SQLite and Tcl/Tk are all usually running from the latest trunk, or something close to that. The "releases" are not somehow more stable. They are merely snapshots that provide convenient download points for users. So it seems like having dates on the download would be more meaningful than having a made-up version number. No? With a date, at least you know about how old the code is. What information does a made-up version number provide? How is that better than a date? Help me to understand. -- D. Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
