On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 11:15:47 +0900, Jason Dorje Short <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Daniel Markstedt wrote: >> On 6/19/08, Marko Lindqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Many distributions are still not released version (of the >>> distribution) which uses Freeciv 2.1 (Ubuntu Dapper & Gutsy are both >>> supported to 2009 and use Freeciv 2.0) My public 2.0 server seems to >>> be sometimes more used than 2.1 ones. It's over year since 2.0.9 was >>> released and many crasher bugs and security fixes has been since made >>> to S2_0 branch. >>> >>> >>> >>> - ML >>> >> >> I support this. >> >> Jason, are there any particular differences in creating a 2.0 release >> as opposed to a 2.1 one? > > 2.0 should be just the same release system as 2.1. Making a new 2.0.x > should be rather easy. Might be a good idea to give translators the > opportunity to backport any new translations though (there shouldn't > really be new strings in 2.0 but trunk or 2.1 may contain expanded > translations). > > Honestly I'd even consider a new 1.14 release. Some people really liked > the 1.14 gameplay and the branch does contain some bugfixes. > > -jason > I'm preparing changelog and news for 2.0.10. Can I tag the release at any time? ~Daniel -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ _______________________________________________ Freeciv-dev mailing list Freeciv-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
