2011/11/24 Sven Barth <pascaldra...@googlemail.com>: > It's not about the RCx, but about the 2.6.0.
Yes, I understand the intention. But this leads to the dilemma that now the branch which is by definition always same or more advanced than the last release(candidate) from it still has a *lower* version number than the already released release candidate itself. Thats the main thing that is so confusing about it. It also leads to the necessity to modify the tag after tagging which is considered bad practice. The branch should already have the RC1 version number at the very moment of tagging and then move onwards from there so that the branch version is always higher than the last tagged version. I hope you can at least see now where I see the problem. Its not so super important, it was just confusing to me because it makes it somewhat inconsistent, thats why I suggested to make the numbering and branching more consistent. Initially I really thought I had gotten something wrong when I started using the 2_6 branch and it installed itself into the old 2.5.1 directory, i intuitively expected the 2_6 branch would also carry a 2.6 version number. Bernd _______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
