Re: [Monotone-devel] netsync flag day justifies bumping version number to 1.0

[hendrik]

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.

> 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.

-- hendrik

> 
> -- 
> -- Stephe
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Monotone-devel mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/monotone-devel