Re: [Announce] GIT v1.5.0-rc2
- From
- H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
- Date
- Jan 21, 2007, 19:49 UTC
- Message-ID
- <45B3C3B4.6000706@zytor.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <7v7ivg1a25.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>
Junio C Hamano wrote:
Show 8 quoted lines
> > 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.
Show 15 quoted lines
>> 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