1 |
I'm baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaack. |
2 |
|
3 |
At least for a bit, wireless in the hotel- should have an apt in the |
4 |
next few days, plus starting new work, offline till connection is |
5 |
available in new place. Meanwhile, hotel through sunday, so probably |
6 |
online/available sporadically during that time frame. |
7 |
|
8 |
|
9 |
On Sat, Dec 10, 2005 at 10:55:43AM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: |
10 |
<snip previous version/symbolic names of branches discussion> |
11 |
> Yep, it makes more sense now. I'd really prefer to chalk it up as a fumble |
12 |
> though and just make sure it doesn't happen again rather than letting it |
13 |
> waterfall. Thinking about what Brian was saying, perhaps the best name for |
14 |
> the time being would be 2.0.20051210? |
15 |
|
16 |
Not huge for YYYYMMDD for releases, assuming that's referenced _only_ |
17 |
as a snapshot developmental release, or... |
18 |
|
19 |
If final release is not 2.1, fine, make it 2.2 (really don't care, |
20 |
although I've levelled my points why 2.1 is what should be used). Either |
21 |
way, decision next few days, rather then indeciveness sounds _really_ |
22 |
nice ;) |
23 |
|
24 |
At this point, don't particularly care what we call it in the branch |
25 |
nor release wise- just care that users get access to it in a release |
26 |
form. :) |
27 |
~harring |