Il giorno mer, 01/08/2012 alle 19.26 +0200, David Kastrup ha scritto: > Build numbers are not all that relevant for _us_ as far as I can tell. > They distinguish different versions compiled from the _same_ canonical > source (so they don't belong into our VERSION file at any rate). > Changes may be updates of the dependencies, of the compiling platform, > of the downstream patches. > > In our case, they would become relevant only when GUB gets updated and > we require a rerelease from otherwise unchanged sources because of that.
We have some history of release tags used in place of bumping patch level in version number: http://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=lilypond.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/tags/release/2.12.3-2 That said, such goofs like that one I was involved in regarding documentation translations is less likely to happen with staging mechanism, a different implementation of "make dist" (I'm testing a patch, see dev/jmandereau if you're impatient), and you controlling the commits that will go in stable/2.16. John _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
