On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 07:52:39 +0200, "h.g. muller" <[email protected]> wrote: > At 21:55 7-9-2009 -0700, Arun Persaud wrote: > >Hi > > > >since this was the first time I really packaged anything, I made a few > >mistakes... thinking of fixing them in the next days and do a 4.4.0.1. > >This would only have tiny fixes in it (for example using a working "make > >dist"). Is everyone ok with this? Or should we call it 4.4.1? I think > >4.4.0.1 is more appropriate. > > I think we should reserve new numbers for releases that really result in a > new executable. > In the past 4.2.7 was upgraded to 4.2.7b when there was a change in the > installer. > I think that it would be better to stick to that system. Call the package > 4.4.0b. > It is still the same XBoard 4.4.0. It is just the way of installing it > (from source) that hs changed.
Yes, letters are fine for packaging changes. No reason to skip over "a" and go right to "b", though. Historical trivia: the first release of 4.2.7 was just 4.2.7, then there was a 4.2.7a with a minor installer fix, then much later 4.2.7b with a whole new installer. -- Tim Mann [email protected] http://tim-mann.org/
