I humbly suggest that the versioning recommendation for the GTK+ stack
and GNOME in general is amended for the third micro part of the
version numbers to match the convention used in cairo.
See http://cairographics.org/manual/cairo-Version-Information.html .
In a nutshell, the idea is that
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007, Tor Lillqvist wrote:
I humbly suggest that the versioning recommendation for the GTK+ stack
and GNOME in general is amended for the third micro part of the
version numbers to match the convention used in cairo.
See
On Ter, 2007-12-11 at 10:37 +0200, Tor Lillqvist wrote:
I humbly suggest that the versioning recommendation for the GTK+ stack
and GNOME in general is amended for the third micro part of the
version numbers to match the convention used in cairo.
See
On Tue, 2007-12-11 at 10:37 +0200, Tor Lillqvist wrote:
I humbly suggest that the versioning recommendation for the GTK+ stack
and GNOME in general is amended for the third micro part of the
version numbers to match the convention used in cairo.
See
On Tue, 2007-12-11 at 13:08 -0600, Shaun McCance wrote:
The problem I see with the proposed scheme is that we can't
fit step (e) into it, since 2.12.2 is never in SVN. With our
current scheme, you can do this:
svn checkout $(url)/tags/MY_PROGRAM_2_12_2
make distcheck
and get, in
The problem I see with the proposed scheme is that we can't
fit step (e) into it, since 2.12.2 is never in SVN. With our
current scheme, you can do this:
svn checkout $(url)/tags/MY_PROGRAM_2_12_2
make distcheck
and get, in theory, exactly the tarball that's sitting on
ftp.gnome.org.
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 21:22:32 +0100, Jürg Billeter wrote:
On Tue, 2007-12-11 at 13:08 -0600, Shaun McCance wrote:
The problem I see with the proposed scheme is that we can't
fit step (e) into it, since 2.12.2 is never in SVN. With our
current scheme, you can do this:
...
The cairo
