Weddington, Eric wrote:
-----Original Message----- From:
avr-libc-dev-bounces+eric.weddington=atmel....@nongnu.org
[mailto:avr-libc-dev-bounces+eric.weddington=atmel....@nongnu. org]
On Behalf Of Joerg Wunsch Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2010 9:04 AM
To: avr-libc-dev@nongnu.org Subject: Re: [avr-libc-dev] avr-libc
1.6.8 [was: duplicating avr-libc fromwinavr]
Therefore, I'd propose our next release will be 1.7.1 (as 1.7.0 has
been in use for the development branch for quite some time now).
If anyone has serious objections against this, please speak up now.
Sounds good. Although why not use 1.7.0? AFAIK, no one has ever done
a public release using HEAD as 1.7.0. As maintainers, we ultimately
decide what the release versions will be. I'm concerned that users
will ask us what happened to 1.7.0 if we jump to 1.7.1.
Don't worry about users asking questions here. There are two sorts of
users of avr-libc - those that understand fine that version numbering
often has "missing" releases, and those that simply use whatever comes
with a particular release of WinAVR. So pick whatever makes it easier
for you guys.
Incidentally, is there a reason why avr-libc is hosted with CVS rather
than Subversion? One thing that is particularly easy with SVN is
tagging releases and branches, so that the original problem in this
thread would be easier to avoid.
mvh.,
David
_______________________________________________
AVR-libc-dev mailing list
AVR-libc-dev@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/avr-libc-dev
