Another thing I noticed is that the downloads page needs to be updated to link to the (future) dist URLs instead of ones in the site's directory (no proper mirroring in the old links).
On 12 November 2017 at 19:25, Scott Deboy <scott.de...@gmail.com> wrote: > I don't recall why - it was a while back :) > > Yes, I think 2.1.0-rc1 would make sense, once we fix the /bin directory > issue. > > On 11/12/17, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 12 November 2017 at 13:53, Scott Deboy <scott.de...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> That's right -forgot we rev'd to 2.1 internally (info.plist, release > >> notes, couple other places). > >> > > > > Any particular reason? > > > > > >> Would it be easiest to release the new version as 2.1.0.0 instead of > >> 2.0.0-rc1? Otherwise I could downgrade 2.1 refs, we never had an > >> official release with that rev. > >> > > > > I could re-roll as 2.1.0-rc1 (or rc2?). I chose 2.0.0 since there's no > tags > > or releases for any 2.x release at all, so it seemed like a logical > > starting point. > > > > And thanks for testing! We should be able to clean up for a proper 2.x > > release. :) > > > > -- > > Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> > > > -- Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com>
