I'll take care of it then.
On 11/14/06, Gerd Wagner <birgit-und-gerd@...> wrote:
> Robert Manning wrote:
> > On 11/14/06, Gerd Wagner <birgit-und-gerd@...> wrote:
> >> Hi guys,
> >> I just saw that the Version class of CVS Head is different from the one in the
> >> 2.3 branch. Is that wanted or a mistake? Probably I didn't follow all of your
> >> discussion on the topic. In case I missed something please tell me.
> >> As a first rule I think everything new should be right away patched into the
> >> main branch. This makes sure nothing gets lost for the future.
> >> Please enlighten me.
> > I made a change to support displaying 2.3.1 instead of 2.x[final|RCn].
> > Is that what you are referring to?
> Yes, that's the difference I saw between the 2.3 branch and the head branch.
> > It was a temporary change since it
> > conflicts with the naming convention used in the past. If you want I
> > can put it on the trunk as well
> If you don't mind I'd prefer that.
> > - does everyone agree that 2.4.0 will
> > be the next release version (instead of 2.4 RC1) with bug-fixes going
> > into 2.4.1 (as opposed to 2.4 RC2). That will mean dropping the use
> > of "final" - which is fine with me. I'm not really sure how we can
> > ever say a release is the "final" one; unless of course we don't
> > intend to do branches for bug-fixes. What do you all think?
> Please go ahead. When I started with the rc/final versions there was not much
> intention in it. So I don't mind if you change it.