Re: schedules Gnus releases
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> wrote:
> On 4 Apr 2006, Aaron M. Ucko told this:
>
> > Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> writes:
> >
> >> So, we have either forcing people running Sid's Gnus to downgrade
> >> from No Gnus 0.3+ to 5.10.8, of ship an unreleased version and
> >> complicate versioning for future releases. Not a clean path going
> >> forward. I am inclined to continue to ship No Gnus, and hopefully
> >> Emacs and Gnus shall release soon, or at least before etch, and
> >> then etch would release is Gnus 5.11.
> >
> > Although it's been a while since I've followed Gnus development
> > actively, my understanding is that 5.11 will be the culmination of
> > the 5.10.x branch that started out as Oort Gnus, and that No Gnus
> > (internally designated 5.11[.]000x) will eventually become
> > 5.12.x/5.13.
> >
> > OTOH, the new ~/News/marks setup makes reupgrading after downgrading
> > problematic, so I'd still say that the sanest course of action would
> > be to stick with No Gnus until it evolves into 5.12.0, at which
> > point it will again be possible to follow stable branches without
> > backtracking.
>
> OK. So should I just give Gnus a version consistent with
> internal versions, and call it Gnus 5.11.004 ? This way, No Gnus
> shall always sort ahead of the Oort Gnus, even when it is released,
> and sort below the official non-develoment release of No Gnus, which
> would be 5.12.
>
> Does that make sense?
That would make more sense that having two names.
Reply to: