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

[hendrik]

On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 07:36:20AM -0400, Stephen Leake wrote:
> 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.

Backports rules allow new backports when the new version ot the software 
reaches testing (at present, this is squeeze).  So there will still be a 
period when ther new version is out but not yet available thtough 
backports.

-- hendrik