From: mose <mo...@ti...> - 2007-11-25 22:41:04
|
le Sun, Nov 25, 2007 at 10:13:02AM -0500 par Mike Kerr (kerrnel22) : > I like the idea, especially the flexibility of allowing recoding and > renumbering the SVN branch to 2.0, but there is one significant drawback > that mose mentioned: > > > * on some shared spaces they propose cvs use, but not always svn (it's > > the case for the hosts that marc uses to host several *.tw.o sites). > > Some projects address this to some extent. They have -RELEASE, > -CURRENT, > -STABLE, and -SNAPSHOT versions of their OS. Without getting into their > methodologies, we've got, essentially: > > 1.9.8.3-STABLE > 1.9.8.3-CURRENT > 1.10-CURRENT (to become 1.10.1-RELEASE) > 2.0-CURRENT > > CURRENT represents the CVS version. In our parlance, 1.9.8 is a > RELEASE, and 1.9.8.3 is a bugfix release, or STABLE release, since we're > not technically accepting new features into it. 2.0 represents the > switch to SVN. > > To address the sites that do not offer SVN, we can offer the equivalent > of a SNAPSHOT release, which is basically a nightly tarball of the > specified CURRENT (svn) branch. I'm not sure if we currently offer > something like this under cvs, but if we do, then this would provide a > good workaround for sites that do not have SVN. So we would now have: > > 1.9.8.3-STABLE > 1.9.8.3-CURRENT > 1.10-CURRENT (to become 1.10.1-RELEASE) > 2.0.YYYYMMDD-SNAPSHOT > 2.0-CURRENT > > Sites that want to remain current with development, but unable to use > SVN can download the SNAPSHOT tarball. The only caveat to this is that > they would be unable to participate in code changes. - well, in the practice, people don't alsways use cvs for being at the edge, but because it's easier to upgrade that way, preserving local patches, that can be merged, where conflicts can be solved easily. Providing a tarbal wouldn't fit such need. Ohertel have been building nightly tarballs of cvs for a while, not sure it's still the case though. cheers, mose |