RE: [FYI] critical bug in EMI2 module
Harrie Hazewinkel <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.mobile.kannel.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <297621.1028545351@localhost> |
--On Sunday, August 4, 2002 3:56 PM +0300 Oded Arbel <[email protected]> wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Stipe Tolj [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Sunday, August 04, 2002 11:30 AM >> To: Harrie Hazewinkel >> Cc: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [FYI] critical bug in EMI2 module >> >> > >> > > So who's +1 for releasing 1.1.7? Votes from the >> contributors please. >> > > BTW, is the version number plan right with 1.1.7 as development >> > > version, which is *newer* than 1.2.0 but the version >> number is less?! >> > >> > I would advise against this. The numbering scheme is not >> inconsistent. >> > Almost every one would say 1.2.0 is a newer release then 1.1.7. >> > And this also depends on how and where you want to branch/tag from. >> >> are you for releasing development version as 1.1.7 or 1.3.x? I didn't >> get the essentials from this statement, sorry Harrie. > > I'd say neither : continue development on the HEAD branch, and don't > version it. the "Service Release" will be labeled 1.2.1, which will > simply be a snapshot of the current HEAD. I am not in favour of releasing 1.1.7 due to it is a lower number then 1.2.0. I actually would think the best is a 1.2.1. Taking a service release from HEAD is the least work. PS: Write also in the changelog when a release is done. Then it changes can be easier traced. Harrie Internet Management Consulting mailto: [email protected] http://www.lisanza.net/ -------------------------------------------------------------------- Author of MOD-SNMP, enabling SNMP management the Apache HTTP server