Rockbox mail archiveSubject: Re: Branch for updated/initial bootloaders for USB-enabled PP and AMS Sansas (and their installers)
Re: Branch for updated/initial bootloaders for USB-enabled PP and AMS Sansas (and their installers)
From: Thomas Martitz <thomas.martitz_at_student.htw-berlin.de>
Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2009 12:12:30 +0200
Dominik Riebeling schrieb:
> On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Thomas
> Martitz<thomas.martitz_at_student.htw-berlin.de> wrote:
>> And after tagging revert the version change again? Not so nice IMO.
> why is there a need to change the version number? Version numbers are
> arbitrary anyway, and if I want to make sure to get a specific version
> I need to get the tag anyway. Current Rockbox Utility svn is "1.2.2"
> as that was the last release.
That's what rbutil is doing...but bootloader (like Rockbox) have a
rXXXXX-<date> version string for svn versions, and a fixed number for
releases. I'm not sure what rbutils versioning has to do with it.
> No confusion was caused by doing it this
> way in the past, and trunk means development, so version numbers and
> similar have to be expected to be wrong.
There was no confusion because only 2 people really work on rbutil, and
both know about the versioning. It would most likely confuse me.
> I don't really see what's the problem with not using one.
I wanted a branch so that work on AMS targets can can continue in SVN
without risking stability of the bootloaders (and the one in the branch
are pretty stable it seems) during our current testing phase. And to
have new PP bootloader with proper version numbers. I didn't know about
"make VERSION=X", and I won't make a branch again just for that.
>>> - Dominik
>> Best regards.
> is there a need to quote my name? I know it, Mr. "Best regards" :)
> - Dominik
I apologize. Best regards.
Received on 2009-07-09