On Thursday 08 December 2005 09:24, Marius Mauch wrote: > 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.
Yep, it makes more sense now. I'd really prefer to chalk it up as a fumble though and just make sure it doesn't happen again rather than letting it waterfall. Thinking about what Brian was saying, perhaps the best name for the time being would be 2.0.20051210? Real life has intervened though and I've already spent time that I don't have on Gentoo today so I'll leave off on this one for a day or two. I'd really like to hear what Brian thinks on all of the above as well. -- Jason Stubbs -- [email protected] mailing list
