Robert Widhopf-Fenk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Sure, but then why should we have the odd numbers? ;-)
The odd numbers should be "a bit more stable than the others". Even with the new development schema (I try to re-read all patches before merging them), I committed syntactically incorrect patches. Odd version numbers should be versions that have been tested for a few days, and for which no major bug has been found. > Also I would suggest that the versions used in the archives > correspond to the major.minor. And when having one archive > corresponding to the release/devo version the patchlevel > should correspond to the patch of the archive. This is not compatible with my comment above. Here's how I see it: When releasing the 1.0 version, I'll create a xtla--releases--1.1 branch, which will be a tag-only branch. Each numbered 1.1.x version will correspond to xtla--releases--1.1--patch-x. This won't prevent us to have several patches in xtla--main--1.1 between two numbered releases. (I'm using the future to make it clearer, but this should be a conditional, of course.) -- Matthieu
