On 6/7/23 06:48, andy pugh wrote:
Is it a problem that we haven't actually released 2.9 and that it is due to be in Bookworm, which is due to be released very soon indeed?
IMO it would have been better if we released 2.9.0 and got it into Bookworm, just because the version number (`2.9.0~pre1+git20230208.f1270d6ed7`) looks a bit goofy and unprofessional. Even just `2.9.0~pre2` would have been preferable.
Based on my reading of <https://release.debian.org/testing/freeze_policy.html>, now that Bookworm is in "Full Freeze" we should not upload a new upstream release, so i think we're stuck with the big goofy version.
Any bugs we want to fix in the debian.org package will need to be fixed in that version of our source code - i assume we'll fix it in the "real" 2.9 and cherrypick/backport the fix to a "bookworm" branch in our gbp repo (<https://github.com/LinuxCNC/linuxcnc-gbp).
I think that's ok. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ -- Sebastian Kuzminsky _______________________________________________ Emc-developers mailing list Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
