On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 8:35 AM, Bernd Kreuss <[email protected]>wrote:
> communicated much better with more "standard" terminology and the 0.9.30
> RC should not be named 0.9.29 and RC should be labeled as such and not
> "fixes" because "fixes" would imply maintenance of an already released
> branch.
>
>
This is the second time the above has been mentioned, so let me make it a
third. I realize there is a lot of work to do and few people doing it, so
maybe this would be really low down on priorities. But when we're building
0.9.30 from svn, and then the fixes branch is forked and supposed to
continue and stabilize upon it, it's just downright confusing for it to
suddenly change to 0.9.29 in our builds. So the fixes branch is really an RC
branch, right? Why not have the version numbering in the fixes branch be
0.9.30RC rxxxxx, even 0.9.30f rxxxxx ("f" for "fixes")? At least it would
limit some of the confusion over which is which.
--
John
--
_______________________________________________
Lazarus mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
