Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote: > > On Thu, 8 Jul 2004, Carsten Ziegeler wrote: > > > The only problem I see is that we can't tag 2.1.6 if we do > it this way! > > And hense cannot easiily reconstruct what has happened. Just > make a branch at 2.1.5 - I am sure there is a tag there; > release a 2.1.5a or a 2.1.6, whatever you call it; and done. > Yepp, sure, you're right. Tagging it in CVS is important.
Ok, I would prefer to call it 2.1.5.1. A 2.1.6 would give the wrong impression as there are actually no new things in it and no bug fixes. So, if noone is against 2.1.5.1, I will do it later today. Carsten
