Rob Funk <rfunk(_at_)funknet(_dot_)net> writes:
Oh, this seems like a good time to mention that I've always disliked ESR's
system of .0 "gold" releases vs "leading-edge" releases. I suspect that
CVS branch deficiences were a factor in this system though.
Ah well. Some projects just add a "stable" tag when the project heads
consider the code stable. Most popular precedent: Apache. Also: bogofilter.
Other projects tag the developer versions with the baseline version that
the developer version branched off plus a date, and never touch the
baseline version again, unless there is a regression, a security bug or
a critical bug. The developer version at some point in time becomes the
new stable version. Precedent: Postfix.
Zack Brown (kerneltraffic editor) also has a document online about
version numbers, but I can't seem to find it.
On the branches, maybe http://svnbook.red-bean.com/svnbook/ch04.html can
tell you more. I haven't yet read it. I skimmed through it and the MERGE
itself appears to be a weak point, Subversion does not track what
changes have been merged, but at least the version number is global
throughout the repository and not per-file, so it might be a bit easier.
I know BitKeeper gets this right, but it's not open-source, and I'd like
to know if there is an open source project that can do it. GNU Arch has
been mentioned by some, it appears be at 1.2 status currently (tla-1.2),
but I don't know how well it works, how easy it is to use and whether it
supports merging properly and all that. At least it's distributed.
--
Matthias Andree
Encrypted mail welcome: my GnuPG key ID is 0x052E7D95