On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 11:15:47 +0900, Jason Dorje Short <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Daniel Markstedt wrote:
>> On 6/19/08, Marko Lindqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Many distributions are still not released version (of the
>>> distribution) which uses Freeciv 2.1 (Ubuntu Dapper & Gutsy are both
>>> supported to 2009 and use Freeciv 2.0) My public 2.0 server seems to
>>> be sometimes more used than 2.1 ones. It's over year since 2.0.9 was
>>> released and many crasher bugs and security fixes has been since made
>>> to S2_0 branch.
>>> - ML
>> I support this.
>> Jason, are there any particular differences in creating a 2.0 release
>> as opposed to a 2.1 one?
> 2.0 should be just the same release system as 2.1. Making a new 2.0.x
> should be rather easy. Might be a good idea to give translators the
> opportunity to backport any new translations though (there shouldn't
> really be new strings in 2.0 but trunk or 2.1 may contain expanded
> Honestly I'd even consider a new 1.14 release. Some people really liked
> the 1.14 gameplay and the branch does contain some bugfixes.
I'm preparing changelog and news for 2.0.10. Can I tag the release at any
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Freeciv-dev mailing list