On Mon, 16 Nov 2009, Jeff Squyres wrote:
Congrats on the release!
I'm a little confused by the version number, though.
2.2.6a was explicitly billed as a packaging change vs. 2.2.6. This was also
the rationale provided as to why the "a" suffix was not included in the
directory name from the
On 11/16/2009 09:32 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
On Nov 16, 2009, at 7:21 AM, Peter O'Gorman wrote:
We are intending to release 2.2.8 sometime (hopefully soon) with all
the new features and lots of bug fixes from git HEAD.
So why not call this release 2.2.8 and bump the version number of the
next
On Nov 16, 2009, at 7:21 AM, Peter O'Gorman wrote:
We are intending to release 2.2.8 sometime (hopefully soon) with all
the new features and lots of bug fixes from git HEAD.
So why not call this release 2.2.8 and bump the version number of the
next one to 2.2.10? Is it technically difficul
On 11/16/2009 09:18 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
Congrats on the release!
I'm a little confused by the version number, though.
2.2.6a was explicitly billed as a packaging change vs. 2.2.6. This was
also the rationale provided as to why the "a" suffix was not included in
the directory name from the e
Congrats on the release!
I'm a little confused by the version number, though.
2.2.6a was explicitly billed as a packaging change vs. 2.2.6. This
was also the rationale provided as to why the "a" suffix was not
included in the directory name from the expanded tarball. This new
release has
