Do you want to do the work yourself, Bernhard?
Bernhard Fischer
rep.nop at aon.at
Tue Aug 29 18:44:28 UTC 2006
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,
More information about the busybox
mailing list