Hi Falk, Thanks for your insights and hints! (and sorry all for my previous double posting...)
On Friday, January 17, 2014 9:30:39 AM UTC+1, F@lk wrote: > >, an "old" 1.0.x version, and a 1.1.x that is said to be the "latest and > greatest" but unstable, and also without a recent release - I tend to chose > 1.1.x but I am reluctant to put valueable data in an alpha version. > "Stable" (1.0) means it's supported to be always fully compatible during > Trac upgrades, "unstable" (1.1) means it could happen that you must (by > knowing some internal backgrounds) manually tweak your trac.db or > configuration when the new features of 1.1 are merged back to the next > stable (1.2). If you look in the past this actually never happened, such > merges kept almost always binary compatibility, but it's not promised. > > OK, so there's a versioning scheme like it used to be in Linux years ago? Good to know and understand that! As my first use case is not super mission critical, I might go with the 1.1.1 then, thanks for your info. That might also enforce me getting to understand the code and see if there's something I can help with. Cheers, Henning -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Trac Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/trac-users. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
