1 |
On Thursday 08 December 2005 09:24, Marius Mauch wrote: |
2 |
> On Wed, 7 Dec 2005 21:33:00 +0900 |
3 |
> |
4 |
> Jason Stubbs <jstubbs@g.o> wrote: |
5 |
> > > It isn't about expectations. |
6 |
> > |
7 |
> > Ok, I misunderstood your previous posts on this topic then. |
8 |
> > |
9 |
> > > I just think it's bad engineering to use the same version prefix for |
10 |
> > > two rather different codebases. ... After all, wasn't engineering |
11 |
> > > the reason why we're going to increase the minor? |
12 |
> > |
13 |
> > I don't understand where the conflict comes in between the two. |
14 |
> > Internally, the old 2.1 has been known as HEAD, trunk and now |
15 |
> > 2.1-experimental. Externally, it's been known as 2.1.0_alpha20050718. |
16 |
> > The set of new features available in 2.1.0_alpha20050718 are pretty |
17 |
> > much all available in current trunk as far as I know... You'll need |
18 |
> > to explain the issue in a little bit more detail. |
19 |
> |
20 |
> I guess it's a mindset thing. You say that "HEAD" and "trunk" are |
21 |
> names, for me they are just locations that tell me _where_ I can find |
22 |
> them, not _what_ they are. When savior goes into trunk at some |
23 |
> point in the future, where will trunk go? branches/2.1-production? |
24 |
> Then we have two 2.1 branches which codebases aren't really related, |
25 |
> but for someone who hasn't worked on both it will look like one is |
26 |
> based on the other. |
27 |
> |
28 |
> This is also the reason why I didn't just put the savior code into a |
29 |
> branches/3.0 but gave it a symbolic name instead. *If* trunk and the |
30 |
> existing 2.1 branch would have similar symbolic names I probably |
31 |
> wouldn't have objected in the first place, but they don't (and |
32 |
> retroactively adding one for 2.1 just for this seems like a bad idea). |
33 |
> I guess one can say it's about identification. Yes, it plays with the |
34 |
> usability aspects of version numbers, but in this case I prefer |
35 |
> technical aspects over usability aspects. |
36 |
> |
37 |
> I hope this makes it a bit more understandable. |
38 |
|
39 |
Yep, it makes more sense now. I'd really prefer to chalk it up as a fumble |
40 |
though and just make sure it doesn't happen again rather than letting it |
41 |
waterfall. Thinking about what Brian was saying, perhaps the best name for |
42 |
the time being would be 2.0.20051210? |
43 |
|
44 |
Real life has intervened though and I've already spent time that I don't have |
45 |
on Gentoo today so I'll leave off on this one for a day or two. I'd really |
46 |
like to hear what Brian thinks on all of the above as well. |
47 |
|
48 |
-- |
49 |
Jason Stubbs |
50 |
-- |
51 |
gentoo-portage-dev@g.o mailing list |