On 31/01/2021 19:27, Matthias Andree wrote: > Am 31.01.21 um 12:21 schrieb Geert Stappers: >> Lonnie Abelbeck's hint on another release was indeed very humble >> and very polite. And yes, he is right with expressing >> We do ourself and the rest of mankind a favour by avoiding >> version string "2.84rc2" for verion "2.84" > > Oh dear. It's not the first time that these two letters + digit were > left in the version, it has happened before, and it is a sign of > trusting 2.84, is it not? 2.84rc2 was tested and released unchanged. > > Given the announcement and tagging and situation, what good is another > release just to correct the version number? Can't we just politely ask > packages to erase the "rc2"? > (My FreeBSD package does exactly that to avoid questions, and I'd > cheated a bit by shipping 2.84rc2 without the housekeeping as 2.83_1 > already because it was just regression fixes.) > > Of course you can found a science in its own around the version number, > but I'd propose that Simon's public statement that 2.84 = 2.84rc2 and an > announcement on the list should just do fine. > >
Matthias, One doubt I had on this is that the -k option to sort smells of a GNU extension. Is it OK on *BSD? Simon. _______________________________________________ Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss