Scott Mcdermott wrote:
Michael Bell on Fri 24/01 11:04 +0100:after we fixed three major problems in 0.9.1 should we release a 0.9.1-1? The problems were
I guess there is no problem for this, let me know when you are done.
just a thought: make 0.9.2 branch be 0.10.0 instead, and then instead of
[...]
maybe it's a sign.
No, we will continue with the next official release to be:
0.9.2
0.9.3
...
1.0.0
There are some options to consider:
1) adding a new sub-revision number, i.e. 0.9.1.1
2) adding a patch-level letter (as OpenSSL) 0.9.1a
3) adding (a Michael idea) the -1 to the version,
i.e. 0.9.1-1
4) releasing the 0.9.2 without new feature, just
fixes
I would be in favour of the second option, btw let me know.
--
C'you,
Massimiliano Pala
--o-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Massimiliano Pala [OpenCA Project Manager] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tel.: +39 (0)59 270 094
http://www.openca.org Fax: +39 178 221 8225
http://openca.sourceforge.net Mobile: +39 (0)347 7222 365
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
