* Jeff Squyres wrote on Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 09:07:39PM CET: > On Mar 19, 2008, at 4:05 PM, Brian W. Barrett wrote: > > > True - I have no objection to waiting for 2.2.1 or 1.3 to be branched, > > whichever comes first. The main point is that under no circumstance > > should 1.3 be shipped with the same 2.1a pre-release as 1.2 uses -- > > it's time to migrate to something stable. > > Cool; I think we're agreed. Just for simplicity; let's do whatever > comes first: LT hits 2.2.1 (or 2.2.2? I don't know their numbering > scheme) or we branch for v1.3.
2.2.2 will be next. Current development happens on the 2.3 branch as well as the 2.2.1 branch, but since we chose both to remain identical until 2.2.2 was done we haven't branched branch-2-2 yet. FWIW, here's the general numbering scheme explained: <http://www.gnu.org/software/libtool/contribute.html> Cheers, Ralf
