Re: 2.0-stable versus 2.1/trunk

Hi,

On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 03:00:13PM +0100, Tobias Hintze wrote:
> besides that i think that the gap between 2.0-stable and 2.1 is too big
> for stabilizing by merging from 2.1 to 2.0 in one step. my idea is to
> split this into more steps. IMHO these steps should be called
> 2.{2,4,6,8}-stable.
> 
> that would imply that we should rename the current trunk from 2.1 to
> something like 2.99, 3.x-dev, ...

<RFC>

what about simply renaming trunk to "TRUNK" - without any version number.
We can use the rev. number if we refer to any special trunk status..

</RFC>

yours,
 - clifford

-- 
 ___     ___ _                  ___     _    ___     _                _
|   |_ _/ __| |_  __ _ _ __  __|   | __| |_ | __|  _| |_ _  _ _ _ ___| |
 | |/ _ \__ \ ' \/ _` | '_ \/ -_) |/ -_) ' \| _| || |  _| || | '_/ -_)_|
 |_|\___/___/_||_\__,_| .__/\___|_|\___|_||_|_| \_,_|\__|\_,_|_| \___(_)
                      |_|                     To Shape Teh Future - TSTF
 
"Some people, when confronted with a problem, think "I know, I'll use
regular expressions." Now they have two problems." - Jamie Zawinski.

_______________________________________________
rock-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.rocklinux.net/mailman/listinfo/rock-devel

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCLERVPNIEsfpKDdERAiTHAKC+2/a+LF3ucoRqgAPVhEJYA+SuLACeIHZk
OJPdgU2zz4fBpLydo57NUtc=
=KNNx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----