You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@subversion.apache.org by "Jostein Chr. Andersen" <jo...@josander.net> on 2003/12/01 16:39:28 UTC
Revision number madness
Hi,
I'm still thinking about handling of release numbers, this is the
situation if I make a tarball now:
If we look at /trunk/CHANGES the beginning is:
Version 0.34.0 (released 3 December 2003, from revision r7859)
http://svn.collab.net/repos/svn/tags/0.34.0
If nothing happends in trunk (as the time of writing), then I commit
CHANGES and svn_version.h as revision 7894 and start to make the tarball
with help of
$ ./dist.sh 0.34.0 7894
What do svn --version say after compiling? It says:
svn, version 0.34.0 (r7894)
So, it will be a big gap between the branched release and the revision
number on the exe.
My suggestion is that I:
* Merge CHANGES and svn_version.h into branches/0.34.0 (r7894)
* Make the header in CHANGES say:
Version 0.34.0 (released 3 December 2003, from revision r7859)
http://svn.collab.net/repos/svn/tags/0.34.0 r7895
And commit before anybody else are doing something.
Then I do
$ ./dist.sh 0.34.0 7895
And tests the tarball. The shiny new svn --version should be:
svn, version 0.34.0 (r7895)
. If everything is fine, then I merges CHANGES from branches/0.34.0 into
the trunk and move branches/0.34.0 to tags/0.34.0 and release the
tarball
OK?
Jostein
--
http://www.josander.net/kontakt/ ||
http://www.josander.net/en/contact/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Revision number madness
Posted by "Jostein Chr. Andersen" <jo...@josander.net>.
On Tuesday 02 December 2003 13.39, John Szakmeister wrote:
> > > On another note, could we please call it either "r7859" or
> > > "revision 7859"? Saying both "revision" and using the "r" prefix
> > > is redundant.
> >
> > Ok, I go for "revision".
>
> Please don't. A change was recently made to remove 'rev' and make
> them 'r' throughout many places in the book and source code. Can we
> just use 'r'?
An r is clear for us who lives with subversion. This is the first text
that meets a user when she/he opens the CHANGES file. r7859 are for
nerds like us. Revision 7859 are for humans. CHANGES is a very public
file.
I understand that the book are using 'r' throughout many places, but I
think that users know what 'r' is when they have been reading some
pages.
So IMHO:
+1 on revision and 0 on 'r'
Jostein
--
http://www.josander.net/kontakt/ ||
http://www.josander.net/en/contact/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Revision number madness
Posted by John Szakmeister <jo...@szakmeister.net>.
On Tuesday 02 December 2003 07:25, Jostein Chr. Andersen wrote:
> On Monday 01 December 2003 23.06, Branko Čibej wrote:
> > > Version 0.34.0 (released 3 December 2003, from revision r7859)
> > > http://svn.collab.net/repos/svn/tags/0.34.0
> >
> > On another note, could we please call it either "r7859" or "revision
> > 7859"? Saying both "revision" and using the "r" prefix is redundant.
>
> Ok, I go for "revision".
Please don't. A change was recently made to remove 'rev' and make them 'r'
throughout many places in the book and source code. Can we just use 'r'?
-John
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Revision number madness
Posted by "Jostein Chr. Andersen" <jo...@josander.net>.
On Monday 01 December 2003 23.06, Branko Čibej wrote:
> > Version 0.34.0 (released 3 December 2003, from revision r7859)
> > http://svn.collab.net/repos/svn/tags/0.34.0
>
> On another note, could we please call it either "r7859" or "revision
> 7859"? Saying both "revision" and using the "r" prefix is redundant.
Ok, I go for "revision".
Jostein
--
http://www.josander.net/kontakt/ ||
http://www.josander.net/en/contact/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Revision number madness
Posted by Branko Čibej <br...@xbc.nu>.
Jostein Chr. Andersen wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I'm still thinking about handling of release numbers, this is the
>situation if I make a tarball now:
>
>If we look at /trunk/CHANGES the beginning is:
>
> Version 0.34.0 (released 3 December 2003, from revision r7859)
> http://svn.collab.net/repos/svn/tags/0.34.0
>
>
On another note, could we please call it either "r7859" or "revision
7859"? Saying both "revision" and using the "r" prefix is redundant.
--
Brane Čibej <br...@xbc.nu> http://www.xbc.nu/brane/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Revision number madness
Posted by Philip Martin <ph...@codematters.co.uk>.
"Jostein Chr. Andersen" <jo...@josander.net> writes:
> So, it will be a big gap between the branched release and the revision
> number on the exe.
I don't see that as a problem. I only use the revision number in the
CHANGES file for one thing, to determine if a bug/feature is likely to
be present in a particular release. I don't care much, but given the
choice the branch revision is useful (to some extent) while the
release revision is of almost no interest.
--
Philip Martin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Revision number madness
Posted by Tobias Ringstrom <to...@ringstrom.mine.nu>.
Jostein Chr. Andersen wrote:
>
> And the upcoming 0.34.0 "svn --version" will ansver:
> svn, version 0.34.0 (r7859)
I think that it would be better to simply have the following:
svn, version 0.34.0 (release)
There really is no sensible repository revision number to put in there.
At least no useful repository number... :-)
> Ok. I'll do what you say It will be like this:
> Version 0.34.0 (released 3 December 2003, from revision 7859)
My personal opinion is that this revision number is pretty useless to
have in the CHANGES file, but other people seem to like it, at least as
long as it specifies the trunk revision number from which the release
was branched. To make it clear what the revision number means it would
be nice to change the line into one of the following variants:
1. Version 0.34.0 (released 3 December 2003, from trunk revision 7859)
2. Version 0.34.0 (released 3 December 2003, branched from trunk r7859)
3. Version 0.34.0 (released 3 December 2003, based on trunk r7859)
Number 2 is my personal favourite.
> If someone wonders how, then they should sheck the changes in revision
> 7898 which have changed ./dist.sh to do this possible.
Cool.
/Tobias
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Revision number madness
Posted by "Jostein Chr. Andersen" <jo...@josander.net>.
On Monday 01 December 2003 20.33, Tobias Ringström wrote:
> > Version 0.34.0 (released 3 December 2003, from revision r7859)
> > http://svn.collab.net/repos/svn/tags/0.34.0 r7895
> >
> > And commit before anybody else are doing something.
>
> I don't like this. Something is wrong if you have to guess the
> revision number for the next commit (or require everyone else to hold
> off their commits which just as bad). The whole point of using a tag
> is to identify the release. The revision number of the tag is 100%
> useless redundancy that can only confuse the users.
Ok. I'll do what you say It will be like this:
Version 0.34.0 (released 3 December 2003, from revision 7859)
And the upcoming 0.34.0 "svn --version" will ansver:
svn, version 0.34.0 (r7859)
If someone wonders how, then they should sheck the changes in revision
7898 which have changed ./dist.sh to do this possible.
So, from now: -The executables revision number is the same as the
revision the release branch are created from.
Tobias: Thanks for all your feedback lately on this mailing list (to much
traffic). I'm sorry that I have'nt answered you on misc. postings but I
have listened. :-)
Thanks to everyone who have provided feedback here.
Jostein
--
http://www.josander.net/kontakt/ ||
http://www.josander.net/en/contact/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Revision number madness
Posted by Paul Lussier <p....@comcast.net>.
In a message dated: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 20:33:15 +0100
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Tobias_Ringstr=F6m?= said:
>> And commit before anybody else are doing something.
>
>I don't like this. Something is wrong if you have to guess the revision
>number for the next commit (or require everyone else to hold off their
>commits which just as bad). The whole point of using a tag is to
>identify the release. The revision number of the tag is 100% useless
>redundancy that can only confuse the users.
I agree. By adding yet another rev number, you're just adding
complexity and confusion. The whole point of tags is to freeze a
specific data set in both time and space. If anyone should ever need
to go back and recreate any given release, they just need to check out
the tag.
Unless I'm misunderstanding something, there's little or no need for a
trunk/ or branches/ release number once the tag is made. So why not
just remove the release number all together? Is there some purpose to
them I'm missing? Or do people just like the warm, cozy feeling they
provide? (which is a perfectly valid reason for keeping them :)
+1 for getting rid of revision numbers
-0 for leaving things the way they are
-1 for adding more revision numbers :)
Seeya,
Paul
--
Key fingerprint = 1660 FECC 5D21 D286 F853 E808 BB07 9239 53F1 28EE
It may look like I'm just sitting here doing nothing,
but I'm really actively waiting for all my problems to go away.
If you're not having fun, you're not doing it right!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Revision number madness
Posted by Alexander Mueller <Xe...@web.de>.
Tobias Ringström wrote:
> Jostein Chr. Andersen wrote:
>
>> Version 0.34.0 (released 3 December 2003, from revision r7859)
>
>
> It would be really nice if it said "from trunk revision r7859" for
> clarity. I mentioned this before, but it was probably lost in the
> noise. If adding "trunk" causes the line to be too long, it can be
> shortened to "from trunk rXXXX".
>
>> * Merge CHANGES and svn_version.h into branches/0.34.0 (r7894)
>> * Make the header in CHANGES say:
>>
>> Version 0.34.0 (released 3 December 2003, from revision r7859)
>> http://svn.collab.net/repos/svn/tags/0.34.0 r7895
>>
>> And commit before anybody else are doing something.
>
>
> I don't like this. Something is wrong if you have to guess the revision
> number for the next commit (or require everyone else to hold off their
> commits which just as bad). The whole point of using a tag is to
> identify the release. The revision number of the tag is 100% useless
> redundancy that can only confuse the users.
>
> /Tobias
+1
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Revision number madness
Posted by solo turn <so...@yahoo.com>.
--- Tobias_Ringstr�m <to...@ringstrom.mine.nu> wrote:
> Jostein Chr. Andersen wrote:
> > Version 0.34.0 (released 3 December 2003, from revision r7859)
> I don't like this. Something is wrong if you have to guess the revision
> number for the next commit (or require everyone else to hold off their
> commits which just as bad). The whole point of using a tag is to
> identify the release. The revision number of the tag is 100% useless
> redundancy that can only confuse the users.
+1
i liked the revision number for easier finding and describing errors in
trunk, where svn --version gives the base version + revision number. i would
appreciate if the behaviour could stay as it is.
-s.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Revision number madness
Posted by Tobias Ringström <to...@ringstrom.mine.nu>.
Jostein Chr. Andersen wrote:
> Version 0.34.0 (released 3 December 2003, from revision r7859)
It would be really nice if it said "from trunk revision r7859" for
clarity. I mentioned this before, but it was probably lost in the
noise. If adding "trunk" causes the line to be too long, it can be
shortened to "from trunk rXXXX".
> * Merge CHANGES and svn_version.h into branches/0.34.0 (r7894)
> * Make the header in CHANGES say:
>
> Version 0.34.0 (released 3 December 2003, from revision r7859)
> http://svn.collab.net/repos/svn/tags/0.34.0 r7895
>
> And commit before anybody else are doing something.
I don't like this. Something is wrong if you have to guess the revision
number for the next commit (or require everyone else to hold off their
commits which just as bad). The whole point of using a tag is to
identify the release. The revision number of the tag is 100% useless
redundancy that can only confuse the users.
/Tobias
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org