Junio C Hamano wrote: > > One worry I had about releasing git-1.5.0-rc2-1.rpm and friends > just like the "official" ones was that people might have scripts > to automate downloading & updating of packages, and they may not > like to get "beta" installed for them. > > I wonder if kernel.org machines are also affected... > Put them in a different directory hierarchy if you don't want to make them installed. >> I know it's a bit late to ask, but if new on-disk format changes, isn't >> it time to bump the version to 2.0? It would be easier for many people to >> remember that GIT 1.X uses format version 1 and that GIT 2.X uses format >> version 2 with backwards compatibility with 1.X. I also think that 1.5 >> is much more different from 1.0 than a mid-term 2.0 would be from current >> 1.5. > > I think we could have gone either way (as you said, it is > probably a bit too late to discuss this), but it should probably > be Ok to stay at 1.X as long as these one-way-street format > updates are turned off by default. > > And the above happened way before this round and people have > hopefully been happily using. For example, v1.4.2 was done > early August 2006. In general, though, I would agree that the major number should change if there is an incompatible change. -hpa - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.htmlReceived on Mon Jan 22 06:50:03 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2007-01-22 06:51:54 EST