On 6 Aug 2010, at 11:59, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > Hello Gary, Hallo Ralf!
> * Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 06:01:37AM CEST: >> I promised to roll a 2.2.12 release this month. But looking at the >> huge progress we've made so far with Windows since 2.2.10, I'm >> wondering if we would be better to roll 2.2.12 sooner rather than >> later? > > I am still looking at several regressions in git over 2.2.10, so no, > a release right now (as opposed to in a couple of weeks, hopefully) > would make me rather unhappy. > > Also, I would prefer a release with this patch series in, at least if > the series is in mergeable shape in the near future. Okay, I'll pencil in a new release for the end of August. >> Slightly related, I wonder whether all the progress on Windows >> justifies calling the next release 2.4? > > A higher number could help notify people that more new bugs have crept > in, certainly. ;-) The w32 support requires Automake support to be > really usable though, and we're still working on that. I had kinda > hoped that there could at least an Automake beta that carries that work. > > OTOH, since I hope to have more larger changes in the future, I'm not > sure we really want another major number bump already. That's only a minor bump, according to major.minor.micro: major bump => substantial rewrite minor bump => new features, new code and new bugs micro bump => regressions and bugs fixed This is the scheme I believe most people recognize, and that suggests to me that 2.4.0 would be the next logical release number? Cheers, -- Gary V. Vaughan (g...@gnu.org)
