[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Monotone-devel] netsync flag day justifies bumping version number t
From: |
Stephen Leake |
Subject: |
Re: [Monotone-devel] netsync flag day justifies bumping version number to 1.0 |
Date: |
Tue, 25 Aug 2009 07:36:20 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.2 (windows-nt) |
address@hidden writes:
> On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 03:32:23AM -0400, Stephen Leake wrote:
>> Ludovic Brenta <address@hidden> writes:
>>
>> > I am of the opinion that the next version of monotone should be 1.0
>> > because of
>> > the netsync flag day.
>> >
>> > This would allow us, maintainers of monotone in Debian, to provide two
>> > versions of monotone in parallel: monotone (the latest) and monotone0
>> > (0.44),
>> > or monotone1 and monotone. This would allow people to have both versions
>> > installed at the same time, without a clash.
>>
>> Makes sense; people dealing with more than one server will have
>> different flag days, and will need both clients until all transition.
>>
>> > I think this would be desirable because Debian 5.0 "Lenny" contains version
>> > 0.40, runs on many servers including www.ada-france.org, and will remain in
>> > service for at least another two years. Thus the transition period for the
>> > netsync change cannot be shorter than that.
>>
>> Can't people install a newer version of monotone on the server?
>
> As mentioned elsewjere, even if monotone were to support both versions
> of the protocol, it's the clients who would have to be updated first,
> because the existing protocol doesn't allow for version-negotiation, and
> the server sends the first packet. Let's try not to make this mistake
> again.
I agree; we should hold the next monotone release until netsync version
negotiation is supported.
>> Is there
>> some reason to stick to a "pure" Debian 5.0 version?
>
> There's a strong reluctance to bypass the Debian packaging system,
> because doing so leads to confusion about just what is installed on the
> system.
>
> This is what backports is for. We'd have to ask for backports to
> provide an up-to-date monotone.
Ok.
That's a good reason _not_ to bump required package versions over what
Debian 5.0 Lenny has now.
--
-- Stephe
- Re: [Monotone-devel] netsync flag day justifies bumping version number to 1.0, (continued)
Re: [Monotone-devel] netsync flag day justifies bumping version number to 1.0, Timothy Brownawell, 2009/08/24
Re: [Monotone-devel] netsync flag day justifies bumping version number to 1.0, Timothy Brownawell, 2009/08/24
Re: [Monotone-devel] netsync flag day justifies bumping version number to 1.0, Stephen Leake, 2009/08/25
- Re: [Monotone-devel] netsync flag day justifies bumping version number to 1.0, hendrik, 2009/08/25
- Re: [Monotone-devel] netsync flag day justifies bumping version number to 1.0,
Stephen Leake <=
- Re: [Monotone-devel] netsync flag day justifies bumping version number to 1.0, Richard Levitte, 2009/08/25
- Re: [Monotone-devel] netsync flag day justifies bumping version number to 1.0, hendrik, 2009/08/25
- Re: [Monotone-devel] netsync flag day justifies bumping version number to 1.0, Ludovic Brenta, 2009/08/25
- Re: [Monotone-devel] netsync flag day justifies bumping version number to 1.0, Zack Weinberg, 2009/08/25
- Re: [Monotone-devel] netsync flag day justifies bumping version number to 1.0, Thomas Keller, 2009/08/25
- Re: [Monotone-devel] netsync flag day justifies bumping version number to 1.0, Ethan Blanton, 2009/08/25
- Re: [Monotone-devel] netsync flag day justifies bumping version number to 1.0, Stephen Leake, 2009/08/26
- Re: [Monotone-devel] netsync flag day justifies bumping version number to 1.0, Ludovic Brenta, 2009/08/26
- Re: [Monotone-devel] netsync flag day justifies bumping version number to 1.0, hendrik, 2009/08/26
- Re: [Monotone-devel] netsync flag day justifies bumping version number to 1.0, Derek Scherger, 2009/08/26