Miscommitted version

3 messages, 26 to 28 Sep 2011. Started by Luke Dashjr.

Luke Dashjr (2), Jeff Garzik

Luke Dashjr 26 Sep 2011, 19:18 UTC permalink original

* 6b8a5ab Bump version to 0.4.1

This should be some pre-0.5.0, not 0.4.1 which will be the stable team's first release...

Jeff Garzik 28 Sep 2011, 03:44 UTC in reply to Luke Dashjr permalink original

On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 3:18 PM, Luke-Jr <luke@dashjr•org> wrote:

Quoted text (4 lines)

> * 6b8a5ab Bump version to 0.4.1
>
> This should be some pre-0.5.0, not 0.4.1 which will be the stable team's first
> release...

No. Technically speaking this most recent release was 0.4.0. That is what is serialized in the build, and what is tagged.

Any stable version based off the most recent release would be 0.4.0.1.

And of course you're following the "upstream must have merged this fix first" rule, right?

Luke Dashjr 28 Sep 2011, 03:53 UTC in reply to Jeff Garzik permalink original

On Tuesday, September 27, 2011 11:44:43 PM Jeff Garzik wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

> On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 3:18 PM, Luke-Jr <luke@dashjr•org> wrote:
> > * 6b8a5ab Bump version to 0.4.1
> >
> > This should be some pre-0.5.0, not 0.4.1 which will be the stable team's
> > first release...
>
> No.  Technically speaking this most recent release was 0.4.0.  That is
> what is serialized in the build, and what is tagged.

I'm aware of that.

Quoted text (1 line)

> Any stable version based off the most recent release would be 0.4.0.1.

Ok. That's not usually how versions work, though. Gavin also recently stated that the next version after 0.4.0 was to be 0.5, which is why the commit was a surprise. I'm just trying to clarify what version number to use for stable, and getting apparently mixed answers.

Quoted text (2 lines)

> And of course you're following the "upstream must have merged this fix
> first" rule, right?

Yep.