As long as there are minor features, I see no reason to have it be labeled as 2.0.6. If it were a ton of new features, and a lot of changes then 2.1 would make since, but I think we are still a long ways away from 2.1. I’m able to compile the nsis installer whenever were ready for the 2.0.6 release.

From: Vaughan Johnson
Sent: ‎Monday‎, ‎July‎ ‎28‎, ‎2014 ‎7‎:‎15‎ ‎PM
To: audacity-devel@lists.sourceforge.net

On 7/22/2014 2:48 PM, Samuel Mehrbrodt wrote:
> Hi
>
> Am 21.07.2014 03:45, schrieb Vaughan Johnson:
>> So *not* for 2.0.6, which I would like to happen ASAP.
>>
>>   From talking with the TL's, I'm Release Manager again. Anybody who has
>> a significant reason to not proceed with the release, please let me
>> know, also ASAP.
> I don't have a reason not to proceed with the release, just wondering
> why the next number is 2.0.6 although there are new features in it.
> Shouldn't we follow Semantic Versioning <http://semver.org/> and
> increment the minor version when releasing a version with new features
> (meaning the next version could be 2.1.0)?
>
> Thanks
> Samuel
>

Thanks, Samuel.

I think there are *many* traditional version-numbering policies, and I
don't really agree with the compatibility-related aspect of that one.
Kind of irrelevant to us as we have not changed our project formats
incompatibly for many years.

However, we may well have fallen into only updating PATCH numbers. But I
think for 2.0.5 and newly for 2.0.6, the new features are really minor
(right?) and it's mostly about lib updates. I welcome comment on whether
that's a fair summary.

And as to the ASAP -- there are very substantial new features in the
wings, and they will deserve higher-level version increment.

Thanks,
Vaughan