Do you want to do the work yourself, Bernhard?

[Bernhard Fischer]

On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 02:18:02PM -0400, Rob Landley wrote:
>About http://busybox.net/downloads/patches/svn-16007.patch
>
>The reason I didn't change Rules.mak to have a version number I don't plan to 
>release would be due to the "I don't plan to release a version with that 
>number" part.

Where did you say that? If you don't want the svn version be
distinguishable from the -release, then please add a note saying so to
the version stuff block.

>               Now we're going to get bug reports about 1.3.0-pre (which 
>tells us absolutely nothing because it's a random svn snapshot, but people 
>will think it means something to us so that's what they'll say).  We're also 
>likely to get people asking us where they can get this 1.3.0-pre they've 
>heard about, since it's now in the downloads directory.)

This did work well until now, so i really do not think that it's hard to
understand for users. We also did set the version to -pre0 for the svn
version for more than a year now..
>
>I'm not saying these are major downsides, I'm just saying there's a reason I 
>didn't do it.

Easy enough to revert.
>
>And if you really, really, really want to try to do the maintainer's job I can 
>give you write access to a subdirectory of downloads, accelerate the switch 
>to Mercurial to this weekend (my conversion script's essentially done, I just 
>have higher priorities for the 1.3.0 release), and stop paying any attention 
>to svn at all (except possibly to cherry-pick from it for the mercurial 
>tree).
>
>This is not how I planned to put out 1.3.0, but if it's what you prefer it 
>would actually be _easier_ on me.

1) no, i don't want to be maintainer
2) it's misleading to call a svn version after an old release (1.2.0,
before abovementioned change). I plain want that it's apparent that it's
off trunk and not the 1.2.0 release, see?

regards,