Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2001 21:33:25 +0200
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender: halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To: Andris Pavenis <pavenis AT lanet DOT lv>
Message-Id: <9003-Thu08Nov2001213325+0200-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
X-Mailer: emacs 21.1.50 (via feedmail 8 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9
CC: acottrel AT ihug DOT com DOT au, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <Pine.A41.4.05.10111081816550.57618-100000@ieva06> (message from
	Andris Pavenis on Thu, 8 Nov 2001 18:21:45 +0200 (WET))
Subject: Re: allegro headers?
References:  <Pine DOT A41 DOT 4 DOT 05 DOT 10111081816550 DOT 57618-100000 AT ieva06>
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
Precedence: bulk

> Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 18:21:45 +0200 (WET)
> From: Andris Pavenis <pavenis AT lanet DOT lv>
> > 
> > That's probably true.  Actually, I think the version in sys/version.h 
> > should be bumped up a second after an official release is zipped and 
> > copied to DJ's staging area, since everything beyond that is the next 
> > version.  That would be good for all kinds of packages which need to DTRT 
> > based on __DJGPP__MINOR__.
> 
> Perhaps it would still be nice to have version number 2.04 now as 
> current CVS version is different enough from 2.03 release and programs
> should be able to distinguish between them.

Sure, that's what I meant: we should have done that a second after
2.03 was released.  Certainly now is a good time to do that.

> Maybe it would be nice to add also some sign in sys/version.h that one is
> using development version of DJGPP.
> 
> For example gcc version in CVS is bumped before release not after that:
> 	soon after release of gcc-3.0.2 version were bumped to
> 	gcc-3.0.3 YYYYMMDD (prerelease)
> (YYYYMMDD - date)

This is usually tricky to set up.