Re: [tsc-devel] Re-releasing 2.0.0 as 2.0.1?
Sydney Dykstra <…d@o…> writes: > If we did do that we would have a 2.0.1 Windows installer and a 2.0.0 > Linux Tarball, and that would seem strange. No, that wouldn’t happen. The sourcecode for Linux would also receive the updated version number then. But I agree that on the sourcecode side of things it is nonsensical as there are no changes between 2.0.0 and a hypothetical 2.0.1. Which is why I favour option 1. Vale, Quintus -- #!/sbin/quintus Blog: http://www.guelkerdev.de GnuPG key: F1D8799FBCC8BC4F
| 2015-10-11 08:52:56 | Quintus | [tsc-devel] Re-releasing 2.0.0 as 2.0.1? | |
| 2015-10-11 11:58:53 | Sydney Dykstra | Re: [tsc-devel] Re-releasing 2.0.0 as 2.0.1? | |
| ▶ | 2015-10-11 13:32:20 | Quintus | Re: [tsc-devel] Re-releasing 2.0.0 as 2.0.1? |
| 2015-10-11 15:17:49 | Lauri Ojansivu | Re: [tsc-devel] Re-releasing 2.0.0 as 2.0.1? | |
| 2015-10-12 21:46:44 | Chris Jacobsen | Re: [tsc-devel] Re-releasing 2.0.0 as 2.0.1? | |
| 2015-10-12 21:47:56 | Chris Jacobsen | Re: [tsc-devel] Re-releasing 2.0.0 as 2.0.1? | |
| 2015-10-13 09:39:11 | Quintus | Re: [tsc-devel] Re-releasing 2.0.0 as 2.0.1? |
| [tsc-devel] Re-releasing 2.0.0 as 2.0.1? | Quintus | 2015-10-11 08:52:56 | |
| Re: [tsc-devel] Re-releasing 2.0.0 as 2.0.1? | Sydney Dykstra | 2015-10-11 11:58:53 | |
| Re: [tsc-devel] Re-releasing 2.0.0 as 2.0.1? | Quintus | 2015-10-11 13:32:20 | ◀ |
| Re: [tsc-devel] Re-releasing 2.0.0 as 2.0.1? | Lauri Ojansivu | 2015-10-11 15:17:49 | |
| Re: [tsc-devel] Re-releasing 2.0.0 as 2.0.1? | Chris Jacobsen | 2015-10-12 21:46:44 | |
| Re: [tsc-devel] Re-releasing 2.0.0 as 2.0.1? | Chris Jacobsen | 2015-10-12 21:47:56 | |
| Re: [tsc-devel] Re-releasing 2.0.0 as 2.0.1? | Quintus | 2015-10-13 09:39:11 |