Christian Anthon <[email protected]> wrote on 30/03/2009
11:19:09:
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 11:43 AM, Massimiliano Maini
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > I do agree we should have a stable branch for version 1.0beta.
> > I still hear many players using old gnubg version arguing that the new
ones
> > are not stable enough. It's hard to make them understand that the old
ones,
> > despite being stable, are also buggy.
>
> This is not going to be a branch, but the main line. I'm going to tag
> the code to make it easier to identify.
Up to you to decide if 1.0 will be a branch or the main trunk, what
matters is
that 1.0 and 2.0 are on separate branches (i.e. one on main, other on a
branch).
> Furthermore, the daily
> snapshots shouldn't be used for our "official" released versions.
Right. We will have a 1.0 stable (or alpha or whatever) download and a
"latest"
download (well flagged as work in progress,possibly buggy).
MaX.
_______________________________________________
Bug-gnubg mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnubg
