On 4 January 2017 at 11:36, Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Jan 2017, Jaroslaw Staniek wrote:
>
> > But I can't spot the calligra/3.0 branch which shall be set to 3.0.0
> > version...
>
> It was decided not to use release branches, but release from master.
>
I see master is set at 3.0.1 now.
Ahh, just dawned on me where I went wrong. A bug fix release will
*always* be stable so... no problem.
Thanks for your patience, Jaroslaw.
Dag skrev den 2017-01-05 11:43:
Jaroslaw Staniek skrev den 2017-01-05 11:29:
On 5 January 2017 at 11:12, Dag wrote:
Jaroslaw Staniek skrev den 2017-01-0
Jaroslaw Staniek skrev den 2017-01-05 11:29:
On 5 January 2017 at 11:12, Dag wrote:
Jaroslaw Staniek skrev den 2017-01-05 10:50:
On 5 January 2017 at 08:59, Dag wrote:
Had a closer look at this, and there is some cmake logic when
generating calligraversion.h:
Any 3.0.x unstable (alpha/beta/r
On 5 January 2017 at 11:12, Dag wrote:
> Jaroslaw Staniek skrev den 2017-01-05 10:50:
>
>> On 5 January 2017 at 08:59, Dag wrote:
>>
>> Had a closer look at this, and there is some cmake logic when
>>> generating calligraversion.h:
>>> Any 3.0.x unstable (alpha/beta/rc) will get version 2.99.x.
Jaroslaw Staniek skrev den 2017-01-05 10:50:
On 5 January 2017 at 08:59, Dag wrote:
Had a closer look at this, and there is some cmake logic when
generating calligraversion.h:
Any 3.0.x unstable (alpha/beta/rc) will get version 2.99.x. (3.1.x
will be 3.0.x, etc)
Afaics this scheme only works w
On 5 January 2017 at 08:59, Dag wrote:
> Had a closer look at this, and there is some cmake logic when generating
> calligraversion.h:
> Any 3.0.x unstable (alpha/beta/rc) will get version 2.99.x. (3.1.x will be
> 3.0.x, etc)
> Afaics this scheme only works when a minor version is increased, e.g
Had a closer look at this, and there is some cmake logic when generating
calligraversion.h:
Any 3.0.x unstable (alpha/beta/rc) will get version 2.99.x. (3.1.x will
be 3.0.x, etc)
Afaics this scheme only works when a minor version is increased, e.g
3.0.x -> 3.1.0.
Is this a disaster? Probably not
On Wed, 4 Jan 2017, Jaroslaw Staniek wrote:
> But I can't spot the calligra/3.0 branch which shall be set to 3.0.0
> version...
It was decided not to use release branches, but release from master.
--
Boudewijn Rempt | http://www.krita.org, http://www.valdyas.org
On 4 January 2017 at 11:09, René J.V. Bertin wrote:
> On Wednesday January 4 2017 10:45:39 Dag wrote:
>
> >We have now released 3.0.0.1. Next should probably be 3.0.1.
> >So I gather current should be an alpha:
> >Major: 3
> >Minor: 0
> >Release: 89
>
Hi All,
Maybe the logic (where I contribu
On Wednesday January 4 2017 10:45:39 Dag wrote:
>We have now released 3.0.0.1. Next should probably be 3.0.1.
>So I gather current should be an alpha:
>Major: 3
>Minor: 0
>Release: 89
>
>But then we would go backwards to Release: 1 when releasing,
>and after that we go to Release: 89 again and we
10 matches
Mail list logo