Stefano Bagnara wrote:
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Stefano Bagnara wrote:
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
2.3.0a4 time? :)
We should follow a different iter for this.
I don't want to tag the branch (and have an alpha number) for each bug
fixed ;-)
We already posted 2.3.0a3, even if unannounced, and it has a critical
bug.
We don't put out untagged things, and people shouldn't be using what we
already posted. So the alternative is to let people waste time on
something
we know is broken, to rerelease 2.3.0a3 (I'm not fond of that idea),
or to
post 2.3.0a4.
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
I don't care of we have 20 milestones or more before we get to a release.
Tags are cheap.
I don't care either. But it would be cool if people would actually test
before casting a +1.
Feel free to release 2.3.0a4 when you prefer: +1
Bug seems to be fixed. Let's go for a4!
Bernd
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
