Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Stefano Bagnara wrote:
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
2.3.0a4 time? :)
We should follow a different iter for this.
I don't want to tag the branch (and have an alpha number) for each bug
fixed ;-)
We already posted 2.3.0a3, even if unannounced, and it has a critical bug.
We don't put out untagged things, and people shouldn't be using what we
already posted. So the alternative is to let people waste time on something
we know is broken, to rerelease 2.3.0a3 (I'm not fond of that idea), or to
post 2.3.0a4.
I don't care of we have 20 milestones or more before we get to a release.
Tags are cheap.
--- Noel
I agree we should not rerelease or reuse alpha numbers (I did this for
alpha2 but I understood it was not correct suddenly).
About the use of alpha3 we have different opinions, but this is not
important.
Feel free to release 2.3.0a4 when you prefer: +1
Stefano
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
