Paul Kelly wrote: > >> I'd be more concerned about 6.3.1, as there have been a fair number of > >> straightforward bug-fixes since 6.3.0. > > > > Well, I know easily 50 fixes which I have NOT backported to 6.3.svn, > > knowing, > > that 6.4.0.RCX is forthcoming soon. Many are related to portability, too. > > So I do think that we need a 6.4.0 the next months (at least I won't go > > through > > all those fixes to check if they are present in 6.3.svn - even the code > > layout > > isn't reindented). > > I'm not sure if this is what Glynn meant, but I ask - why does 6.3.1 have > to be released from the 6.3.0 release branch? Why not just release 6.3.1 > straight from develbranch_6? I really don't see the need to always have a > release branch for releases. IMHO it slows things down and is a major > impediment to "release early, release often" working.
Any release from develbranch_6 will contain incompatible changes, so it should be called 6.4.0, not 6.3.1. Versions which share the same major and minor numbers, differing only in the release number, shouldn't have even minor incompatibilities. Ideally, such versions should retain build-time compatibility as well as run-time compatibility, so that third-party code will continue to work in spite of any update. -- Glynn Clements <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _______________________________________________ grass-dev mailing list grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
