On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 05:31:10PM +0200, Christian Ohm wrote:
> On Tuesday, 14 September 2010 at 11:31, Giel van Schijndel wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 12:56:53AM -0400, buginator wrote:
>>> On 9/13/10, Christian Ohm wrote:
How about doing 2.3.5.x releases for bugfixes only instead? So
On Tuesday, 14 September 2010 at 11:31, Giel van Schijndel wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 12:56:53AM -0400, buginator wrote:
> > On 9/13/10, Christian Ohm wrote:
> >> So how long would this bugfix 2.3 live? Until 2.5 is done, and then
> >> 2.4 is fixes only? By what criteria will the jump to 2.5
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 12:56:53AM -0400, buginator wrote:
> On 9/13/10, Christian Ohm wrote:
>> So how long would this bugfix 2.3 live? Until 2.5 is done, and then
>> 2.4 is fixes only? By what criteria will the jump to 2.5 happen?
>
> I am not really sure what the new criteria will be required
On 9/13/10, Christian Ohm wrote:
> So how long would this bugfix 2.3 live? Until 2.5 is done, and then 2.4 is
> fixes only? By what criteria will the jump to 2.5 happen?
I am not really sure what the new criteria will be required for a
major version bump.
Is it netcode ? Gfx ? Lobby code ? Othe
On Sunday, 12 September 2010 at 22:24, buginator wrote:
> On 9/12/10, Christian Ohm wrote:
> > The way I'd do 2.3 releases is:
> >
> > 0. Make Fastdeath's server build daily SVN snapshot builds, so hopefully
> > the
> > changes in current SVN get a bit more exposure before being in a RC.
> >
On 9/12/10, Christian Ohm wrote:
> The way I'd do 2.3 releases is:
>
> 0. Make Fastdeath's server build daily SVN snapshot builds, so hopefully the
> changes in current SVN get a bit more exposure before being in a RC.
>
> 1. Branch a release branch off from 2.3 (either abusing a tag, or mak
