Lucas Bonnet <[email protected]> wrote:
>> at the moment the source at HEAD identifies the version as
>> "3.0" in Makefile and lisp/emms.el - this is bad, as it can
>> lead to confusion with the released 3.0.
>> I don't think that it is necessary a define a full-fledged
>> numbering scheme à la alpha, beta, rc1, rc2, release, but I
>> would like to be able to:
>> - distinguish hot code being currently developed from code
>> having been released ("4.0dev" being the predecessor for
>> "4.0"?), and
>> - maintain previous releases, i.e., while new features are
>> being added to the "4.0dev" line, bug fixes (in theory)
>> are backported to "3.1dev" -> "3.1" (or "3.0.2dev" ->
>> "3.0.2").
> Yeah, we should at least have two branches now:
> - 3.0-maintenance, to apply bugfixes to the released (and quite old)
> EMMS 3.0
> - HEAD, where new code is pushed
> - plus the temporary branches where fun stuff breaks everything, like
> typos-fix and so on, which should eventually get merged into HEAD.
> I really need to get up to speed with git :)
Oh, I didn't mean to talk about so low-level stuff as bran-
ches; I'm thinking more about the user who doesn't "git
clone" and still wants to know whether the snapshot he down-
loaded from somewhere on the web is "3.0" or "3.0" :-).
Tim
_______________________________________________
Emms-patches mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emms-patches
