On Wed, 7 Dec 2005 21:33:00 +0900 Jason Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It isn't about expectations. > > Ok, I misunderstood your previous posts on this topic then. > > > I just think it's bad engineering to use the same version prefix for > > two rather different codebases. ... After all, wasn't engineering > > the reason why we're going to increase the minor? > > I don't understand where the conflict comes in between the two. > Internally, the old 2.1 has been known as HEAD, trunk and now > 2.1-experimental. Externally, it's been known as 2.1.0_alpha20050718. > The set of new features available in 2.1.0_alpha20050718 are pretty > much all available in current trunk as far as I know... You'll need > to explain the issue in a little bit more detail. I guess it's a mindset thing. You say that "HEAD" and "trunk" are names, for me they are just locations that tell me _where_ I can find them, not _what_ they are. When savior goes into trunk at some point in the future, where will trunk go? branches/2.1-production? Then we have two 2.1 branches which codebases aren't really related, but for someone who hasn't worked on both it will look like one is based on the other. This is also the reason why I didn't just put the savior code into a branches/3.0 but gave it a symbolic name instead. *If* trunk and the existing 2.1 branch would have similar symbolic names I probably wouldn't have objected in the first place, but they don't (and retroactively adding one for 2.1 just for this seems like a bad idea). I guess one can say it's about identification. Yes, it plays with the usability aspects of version numbers, but in this case I prefer technical aspects over usability aspects. I hope this makes it a bit more understandable. -- Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
