On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 18:20, Benjamin Root <ben.r...@ou.edu> wrote: > I am fine with letting 1.0.1 go out as is (unless we can't live with the
is already out: look at SF download page to see how many have downloaded it. > documentation typos that has shown up). I am also hesistant about putting > out yet another bug-fix release because there will be distros that will have > 1.0.0, 1.0.1, and then possibly others with 1.0.2, which would turn into a > maintenance nightmare. Instead, let's just let those package maintainers > keep up with the patches to 1.0.1. > > This also raises a question. When putting out maintenance patches, are we > going to have to patch 1.0.0 and 1.0.1? If you're saying you want to publish another tarball with version 1.0.1 that has different contents of the current one, than with my distro package maintainer and programmer hats on I say "you should not". If you have published (and not advertised, ok) something, you cannot re-publish the same version but with something "different" in it. Just go with 1.0.2, distros have (usually) the latest version and you are free to release patches in the HEAD of your development tree: it's a distro package maintainer evaluate if this patches are to be backported to the distro version, if the version cannot be bring up-to-date with the latest release. Cheers, -- Sandro Tosi (aka morph, morpheus, matrixhasu) My website: http://matrixhasu.altervista.org/ Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Protect Your Site and Customers from Malware Attacks Learn about various malware tactics and how to avoid them. Understand malware threats, the impact they can have on your business, and how you can protect your company and customers by using code signing. http://p.sf.net/sfu/oracle-sfdevnl _______________________________________________ Matplotlib-devel mailing list Matplotlib-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/matplotlib-devel
