Am 31.01.21 um 12:21 schrieb Geert Stappers: > Lonnie Abelbeck's hint on another release was indeed very humble > and very polite. And yes, he is right with expressing > We do ourself and the rest of mankind a favour by avoiding > version string "2.84rc2" for verion "2.84"
Oh dear. It's not the first time that these two letters + digit were left in the version, it has happened before, and it is a sign of trusting 2.84, is it not? 2.84rc2 was tested and released unchanged. Given the announcement and tagging and situation, what good is another release just to correct the version number? Can't we just politely ask packages to erase the "rc2"? (My FreeBSD package does exactly that to avoid questions, and I'd cheated a bit by shipping 2.84rc2 without the housekeeping as 2.83_1 already because it was just regression fixes.) Of course you can found a science in its own around the version number, but I'd propose that Simon's public statement that 2.84 = 2.84rc2 and an announcement on the list should just do fine. _______________________________________________ Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss
