You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to rivet-dev@tcl.apache.org by David Welton <da...@dedasys.com> on 2010/04/21 10:31:22 UTC
Re: TODOs before releasing [Re: RPM created for Rivet -- some
questions]
> The current version number is 0.8.0, but sometime in the past someone
> (David?) created a 1_0 branch. I think we should eventually release with a
> number that won't bring confusion or misunderstandings when we create a new
> branch out of the trunk.
Let's go ahead and call it 1.0 or even 2.0.
--
David N. Welton
http://www.welton.it/davidw/
http://www.dedasys.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: rivet-dev-unsubscribe@tcl.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: rivet-dev-help@tcl.apache.org
Re: TODOs before releasing [Re: RPM created for Rivet -- some questions]
Posted by Massimo Manghi <ma...@unipr.it>.
1.1 was also my proposal. Damon suggested 2.0 instead on the argument
that such a version number would make clear that this release is meant
to work also with Apache 2.x.
-- Massimo
On 04/27/2010 10:44 PM, Jeff Lawson wrote:
>
> How about calling it version 1.1 instead? Then it won't seem like
> such a large jump.
>
> Publishing a fresh tarball with an identifiable version number will
> allow more users to begin trying it out and giving feedback, even if
> we know there might be issues. It's not practical for some people to
> use software that is not available as an RPM, FreeBSD port, deb,
> etc--lacking published tarballs is currently blocking those
> distribution methods from existing.
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: rivet-dev-unsubscribe@tcl.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: rivet-dev-help@tcl.apache.org
Re: TODOs before releasing [Re: RPM created for Rivet -- some
questions]
Posted by Jeff Lawson <je...@bovine.net>.
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 3:31 AM, David Welton <da...@dedasys.com> wrote:
> > The current version number is 0.8.0, but sometime in the past someone
> > (David?) created a 1_0 branch. I think we should eventually release with
> a
> > number that won't bring confusion or misunderstandings when we create a
> new
> > branch out of the trunk.
>
> Let's go ahead and call it 1.0 or even 2.0.
>
>
How about calling it version 1.1 instead? Then it won't seem like such a
large jump.
Publishing a fresh tarball with an identifiable version number will allow
more users to begin trying it out and giving feedback, even if we know there
might be issues. It's not practical for some people to use software that is
not available as an RPM, FreeBSD port, deb, etc--lacking published tarballs
is currently blocking those distribution methods from existing.