Gentoo Archives: gentoo-portage-dev

From: Brian Harring <ferringb@g.o>
To: gentoo-portage-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] .53, .54 and beyond...
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 08:34:46
Message-Id: 20051214083353.GE10957@nightcrawler.e-centre.net
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] .53, .54 and beyond... by Jason Stubbs
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