On 5/15/07, Dan Gahlinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
how about just 2.0.8.5 ?
Although I suppose it's possible this 2.0.9 that you built will "become" the
"real" 2.0.9 at some point?
its complicated
for a variety of reasons which I'll not bore you with, the next
official release will be 2.1.1* and the version up there now, though
named 2.0.9 when I created it, retrospectively became the unreleased
2.1.0
* Due ASAP, after which we should be able to resume "normal"
transmission with bugfix-only releases and clearly identified feature
releases.
Dan.
On 5/15/07, Lars Marowsky-Bree <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 2007-05-15T10:47:43, Andrew Beekhof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > In fairness to SUSE, it was solely my doing while I learnt how to use
> > the openSUSE build service. The version there isnt an official SUSE
> > release either.
> >
> > To be honest I didnt know what to call it... 2.0.8 seemed wrong (since
> > there was an extra 4-5 months development in there) but there is no
> > real 2.0.9 either... oh well.
>
> Well, the version in mercurial does identify itself as 2.0.9 when build.
> Maybe, to reflect the intermediate state, 2.0.8.999 would have been
> better.
>
>
> Sincerely,
> Lars
>
> --
> Teamlead Kernel, SuSE Labs, Research and Development
> SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg)
> "Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes." -- Oscar Wilde
>
> _______________________________________________
> Linux-HA mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha
> See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
>
_______________________________________________
Linux-HA mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha
See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
_______________________________________________
Linux-HA mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha
See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
