Wouldn't it be 2.0.0-rc2? Also, good timing: I can cut a new RC in the next few hours.
On 20 January 2018 at 09:47, Scott Deboy <scott.de...@gmail.com> wrote: > Matt, would you mind re-spinning a new build at 2.1.0-rc1? > > On 1/19/18, Scott Deboy <scott.de...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I finally looked at this. I pushed a change to app assembler config > > to make the bin directory executable, and updated HOWTOBUILD to > > mention you need to run mvn site:site first. > > > > Can we resin? > > > > On 11/13/17, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> 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> > >> > > > -- Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com>
