> Tor,
> It may not work out here, since the micro version is what we bump during
> release which is in sync with the GNOME Release micro version.
I sent the idea to desktop-devel-list and gtk-devel-list instead, as
mbarnes suggested. Let's see if anything comes out of it. Some people
seem to like
Tor,
It may not work out here, since the micro version is what we bump during
release which is in sync with the GNOME Release micro version.
(Evolution 2.21.3 == GNOME 2.21.3)
Matt, I'm not against it, if it benefits hackers. Personally I don't use
2 versions and so It doesn't matter much to me.
Le mardi 11 décembre 2007 à 00:35 -0500, Matthew Barnes a écrit :
> On Tue, 2007-12-11 at 03:29 +0200, Tor Lillqvist wrote:
> > May I suggest a third, in my opinion superior, way: Both.
> >
> > That's what cairo uses, see
> > http://cairographics.org/manual/cairo-Version-Information.html . The
>
On Tue, 2007-12-11 at 03:29 +0200, Tor Lillqvist wrote:
> May I suggest a third, in my opinion superior, way: Both.
>
> That's what cairo uses, see
> http://cairographics.org/manual/cairo-Version-Information.html . The
> micro version number is even in released tarballs, and odd
> inbetween. The e
> I notice we've been doing pre-release version incrementing
> [...]
> I was wondering if the team would be open to switching to post-release
> version incrementing
May I suggest a third, in my opinion superior, way: Both.
That's what cairo uses, see
http://cairographics.org/manual/cairo-Versi
Just a thought:
I and I'm sure many of the Evolution developers find themselves
frequently switching between Subversion builds and official releases as
part of our daily work routine, and sometimes I get confused about what
I'm running, especially when bonobo-activatation-server is part of the
equ
