Re: "Virtual" version 2.4 (and probably 2.6, potentially 2.8)

Hello again,

I've now pushed the tag `v2.4.0+unreleased`, it doesn't trigger anything 
and it's pretty clear what is meant. Only drawback is that `./setup.sh 
--version` complains but I don't think it will break anything (return 
code is still 0).

If someone wonders, message is:

$ ./setup.py --version
/usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/setuptools_scm/version.py:91: 
UserWarning: tag 'v2.4.0+unreleased' will be stripped of its suffix 
'+unreleased'
   warnings.warn(
2.4.1.dev6+gdb79f6b

It was just for information, nobody needs to do anything.

KR, Eric

On 06/10/2023 07:48, EricZolf wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> sorry for the mess, but pushing a "virtual" version wasn't such a good 
> idea, it triggered release of versions I wasn't aware of (AUR and 
> Homebrew).
> 
> So I've removed the tag and apologize to whomever is responsible for 
> those distros. Sorry for any confusion I might have created, v2.4.0 was 
> never meant to get released (only for the weekly release), so please 
> remove it if you (maintainer) are reading those lines.
> 
> Sorry, Eric
> 
> PS: PyPI was also impacted but I'm the responsible, so already removed.
> 
> On 02/10/2023 09:02, EricZolf wrote:
>> BTW, the empty changelog for the weekly release is normal, as it is 
>> the changelog since the last release, so 2.4.0, so nothing...
>>
>> KR, Eric
>>
>> On 01/10/2023 18:54, EricZolf wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> if someone would pay attention, they would have noticed that I just 
>>> pushed a tag version v2.4.0 and updated accordingly the changelog.
>>>
>>> Don't be surprised or confused. As I wrote in a previous e-mail, I 
>>> don't plan to release it, but it just shows that the code has evolved 
>>> compared to the latest 2.2.6 version.
>>>
>>> Tonight's weekly release [0] will accordingly be released without the 
>>> old CLI (check the changelog for details), and it would be nice if 
>>> some of you could test it making sure that nothing is broken, after 
>>> this rather important change [1]. But check it only tomorrow!
>>>
>>> It'll take probably a bit longer but I'm currently removing 
>>> everything related to API 200 / rdiff-backup 2.0.x, and will probably 
>>> tag it with version 2.6 (also unreleased), and then it would again be 
>>> good to have people test that nothing broke in API 201, e.g. against 
>>> version 2.2.
>>>
>>> We could wait until 3.0 is out to test, but I would prefer to go step 
>>> by step and make sure nothing breaks before too many changes are made 
>>> to know where the issue appeared.
>>>
>>> Thanks, Eric
>>>
>>> [0] https://github.com/rdiff-backup/rdiff-backup/releases/tag/weekly
>>> [1] 32 files changed, 243 insertions(+), 1708 deletions(-)
>>>
>>
>>
> 
>