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?
manoj
--
My pants just went to high school in the Carlsbad Caverns!!!
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C