works for me :) > On Jan 24, 2019, at 4:26 PM, Andrea Pescetti <[email protected]> wrote: > > Marcus write: >> No further opinions? Come on :-) > > More or less, my opinion is the same as yours: we can't use "trunk" since > trunk is a moving target ("trunk" today is something different than "trunk" > in a few months). I think we used codes such as 4.2.0-dev and this should be > the way to go, so 4.3.0-dev would be a natural choice. Of course, we might > want to use different numbers in future, but for the moment this is better > than a generic "trunk". > > Regards, > Andrea. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
