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

[Stephen Leake]

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