On Tue, 2012-08-07 at 12:24 +0200, tino wrote: > ------- Original message ------- > > From: Patrick Ohly <[email protected]> > > To: [email protected] > > Cc: [email protected] > > Sent: 7.8.'12, 9:07 > > > > On Mon, 2012-08-06 at 21:18 +0200, [email protected] > > wrote: > >> what is the state of 1.2.99.3? I looks like there are quite some > >> interesting bugs since the syncevolution-1-2-99-3 git tag. > > > > True. I probably should just go ahead and tag+compile 1.2.99.4. Or > > perhaps go for 1.3 directly? > > > > What do you and users think? Does 1.3 need more time for testing or > > should I just go ahead and pull the trigger? > > Hi, > > maybe it is a good idea to release 1.2.99.4 and rename it to 1.3 if nothing > serious pops up for a few days.
I tagged 1.2.99.4 this morning, a sanity build + test run is on-going. Renaming it to 1.3 will require another recompile, because the version number is embedded in the configure script and resulting binaries. -- Best Regards, Patrick Ohly The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak on behalf of Intel on this matter. _______________________________________________ SyncEvolution mailing list [email protected] http://lists.syncevolution.org/listinfo/syncevolution
