On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 13:40:05 +0100, Patrick Leslie Polzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 00:06:56 +0100 > K.G. <"K.G." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > > I think you forgot to update both PED_INTERFACE_AGE and > > PED_BINARY_AGE in configure.in when you released 1.6.25. > Oh dear, I'm sorry. In all the haste this has escaped me :( > I agree with Otavios suggestions.
All right, let's do that. Then 1.6.26 will be set source and binary incompatible with previous versions, so we'll be sure it can't break things with neither 1.6.25 nor 1.6.25.1 (and maybe people are already using 1.6.25 so i think this is necessary). Hopefuly with the big changes that will go in 1.6.26 this will be the case (or almost the case at the very least ;) I'll prepare a tag and then ask for review, then for release. I think there's no problem in displaying Parted 1.6.25 at the start of 1.6.25.1 because the code don't change, but if somebody thinks it's better I could directly add ".1" in the source (i don't think autoconf stuffs support x.y.z.t). Guillaume _______________________________________________ Bug-parted mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-parted
