From:	sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu (Charles Sandmann)
Message-Id:	<10109271319.AA15082@clio.rice.edu>
Subject:	Re: 2.03.1 (resend again)
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date:	Thu, 27 Sep 2001 08:19:17 -0500 (CDT)
Cc:	dj AT delorie DOT com
In-Reply-To:	<no.id> from "sandmann" at Sep 26, 2001 01:04:28 PM
X-Mailer:	ELM [version 2.5 PL2]
Mime-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

> If we decide to produce a patches 2.03 (which I think we have), we
> should create a CVS branch for it and commit the patches.  You can get
> the 2.03 release by checking out the v2_03 branch in CVS, and once
> checked out, you can use it as the basis for a branch.

> Or, we can branch at the 2.03 point with:
> 
>     cvs rtag -b -r v2_03 v2_03_1 djgpp
> 
> Of course, we need to decide on what we're going to call this branch,
> if not 2.03.1.
> 
> Of course, we could call the branched 2.03 "2.04" and call the current
> cvs 2.05.

I agree the patches should be stored in cvs.  I think a branch is 
probably the correct way.  I would call it either 2.03.1 or 2.03-update.
I think calling it 2.04 would cause some confusion (features have been
publicly stated as being available in 2.04 when released).  

Calling it 2.04 does solve naming issues ...  
That was the fix for 1.09d - call it 1.10 :-)

Since 2.03+ is really only useful for win2K users, I am not sure it 
merits an entire release - I'd hate for people to do their once every
3 year update to 2.04 if it's only the minor patches.  Just refreshing
2.03 in place is probably adequate for those wanting to mess with Win2K
before we release 2.04 (which is hopefully "soon").

I would almost rather not release the patches to the public if we do the
renumbering confusion...

- Raw text -