Re: 2.0-stable versus 2.1/trunk
Tobias Hintze <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.linux.distributions.rock.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 01:08:53PM +0100, Clifford Wolf wrote:
> 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>
sounds good to me. should we have 2.0.3.1, 2.0.3.2, ... for fixing only
and 2.0.4, 2.0.5, ... for feature merge-backs?
or should i name the version for feature merge-backs more like 2.2.0,
2.2.1, 2.2.2, ...?
i think i'd like the first version more. hey kernel does the same now ;)
th
--
>
> 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
--
Tobias Hintze http://hbs-solutions.de
HBS solutions GbR - Network & Information Systems