Re: [tsc-devel] Re-releasing 2.0.0 as 2.0.1?

Quintus | Sun, 11 Oct 2015 13:32:20 UTC

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

By Thread
2015-10-11 08:52:56Quintus[tsc-devel] Re-releasing 2.0.0 as 2.0.1?
2015-10-11 11:58:53Sydney DykstraRe: [tsc-devel] Re-releasing 2.0.0 as 2.0.1?
2015-10-11 13:32:20QuintusRe: [tsc-devel] Re-releasing 2.0.0 as 2.0.1?
2015-10-11 15:17:49Lauri OjansivuRe: [tsc-devel] Re-releasing 2.0.0 as 2.0.1?
2015-10-12 21:46:44Chris JacobsenRe: [tsc-devel] Re-releasing 2.0.0 as 2.0.1?
2015-10-12 21:47:56Chris JacobsenRe: [tsc-devel] Re-releasing 2.0.0 as 2.0.1?
2015-10-13 09:39:11QuintusRe: [tsc-devel] Re-releasing 2.0.0 as 2.0.1?
By Date
[tsc-devel] Re-releasing 2.0.0 as 2.0.1?Quintus2015-10-11 08:52:56
Re: [tsc-devel] Re-releasing 2.0.0 as 2.0.1?Sydney Dykstra2015-10-11 11:58:53
Re: [tsc-devel] Re-releasing 2.0.0 as 2.0.1?Quintus2015-10-11 13:32:20
Re: [tsc-devel] Re-releasing 2.0.0 as 2.0.1?Lauri Ojansivu2015-10-11 15:17:49
Re: [tsc-devel] Re-releasing 2.0.0 as 2.0.1?Chris Jacobsen2015-10-12 21:46:44
Re: [tsc-devel] Re-releasing 2.0.0 as 2.0.1?Chris Jacobsen2015-10-12 21:47:56
Re: [tsc-devel] Re-releasing 2.0.0 as 2.0.1?Quintus2015-10-13 09:39:11