Re: [Evolution-hackers] Post-release version incrementing

2007-12-12 Thread Tor Lillqvist
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

Re: [Evolution-hackers] Post-release version incrementing

2007-12-11 Thread Srinivasa Ragavan
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.

[Evolution-hackers] Post-release version incrementing

2007-12-10 Thread Matthew Barnes
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

Re: [Evolution-hackers] Post-release version incrementing

2007-12-10 Thread Tor Lillqvist
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

Re: [Evolution-hackers] Post-release version incrementing

2007-12-10 Thread Matthew Barnes
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 even