I spoke to Alvaro on PM, but he had to run, so I'm writing here instead of him:
> 1) now we have to update the version in the amsn file.. what should it > become? More generally, what will this release be? > 0.96rc1 followed by rc2, then rc..., then 0.96 > or 0.96 followed by 0.96.1, etc > i would say the second, because if we don't have critical bugs, we don't > want to make another release that is essentially the same, and it is > weird in my opinion to have 0.96rc2 followed by a 0.97 release. > to be short with rc then you have to make as much rc's until there are > no more bugs, and then make another release that is only a namechange > from rc to normal. With the .bugfix releases none of these problems > exist, and computers will have an easier time to understand what version > is newer. [16:22:27] <Álvaro (#)> better [16:22:30] <Álvaro (#)> 0.95.99 [16:22:32] <Álvaro (#)> then 0.95.999 [16:22:40] <Álvaro (#)> that way it doesn't look like 0.96 yet [16:22:43] <Álvaro (#)> i mean [16:22:45] <Álvaro (#)> if it's 0.96.1 [16:22:52] <Álvaro (#)> people won't see it as a rc > 3) do we create a tag for this release in svn? (A tag and a branch are > the same in svn, technically) So does it have any benefits to create a > tag, when we already have a 0.96 branch, which we can check out by > revision number, if bugfixes later are done in this branch. [16:25:31] <Álvaro (#)> but it's better just "tag 0.96" [16:25:39] <Álvaro (#)> than "branch 0.96+revision number xxx981984934x [16:25:47] <Álvaro (#)> isn't it? :D [16:25:52] <Álvaro (#)> a tag is a finished branch [16:26:05] <Álvaro (#)> i think it should be tagged anyways [16:26:13] <Álvaro (#)> that way you can always check the list of tags [16:26:17] <Álvaro (#)> and see what versions were released _______________________________________________ Amsn-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/amsn-devel
