On Tue, 31 Jan 2006, Karl Fogel wrote:
> Daniel Rall <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > I too prefer Greg's suggested strategy. It's simpler, and results in
> > less possibility for errors when referring to a release, since it
> > needn't be qualified with "rcX".
> Hmm. Somebody is misunderstanding something here, but I'm not sure if
> it's you, me, or Greg, or some combination therewhom :-).
> IIUC, Greg wasn't proposing getting rid of the "-rcX" tarballs. He
> was just saying let's never issue two tarballs with different content
> but the same name (something we currently can do, and have done,
> albeit in very limited circumstances).
I'm saying it's simplest to call the new tarball x.y.(z + 1), if the
previous tarball was named x.y.z. I'm advocating that approach even
when nothing meaningful in the source code has changed between
tarballs. I believe we've done this in the past when a tarball has
Received on Tue Jan 31 22:56:23 2006
- application/pgp-signature attachment: stored