RE: [FYI] critical bug in EMI2 module

On Seg, 2002-08-05 at 10:02, Harrie Hazewinkel wrote:
> 
> --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.


Haven't someone branch the code on 1.2.0 ?
If so (I hope so :P), the fixes (not the new features) should have
been commited on HEAD AND on 1.2.0 branch, and now we'll just have
to tag a 1.2.1 and release it.

we should have tagged 1.2.0 with 1.3.0 too, so now we could release
1.3.1 with the new features (if any).

Don't just release HEAD as 1.2.1... if 1.2 is stable, it should only 
include fixes.