2011/2/12 John Stoneham <[email protected]>: > 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.
It is only a RC branch until the release after that is a fixes branch. Maybe it would confuse people less, if it the branch is renamed, but I doubt that. Vincent -- _______________________________________________ Lazarus mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
