Re: Bump mainline version number

["H. J. Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>]

On Tue, May 06, 2003 at 07:19:52PM +0100, Nick Clifton wrote:
> Hi Zack,
> 
> > http://www.panix.com/~zackw/exbib/2002/June/20#1445
> > http://www.panix.com/~zackw/exbib/2002/June/30#1150
> 
> Ok, so you think that the branch that is about to be released ought to
> be version 2.14.0 correct ?  And that the current CVS sources should
> not have a version number at all, or if they do, it ought to be
> something like "2.15.0 <today's-date>".  Is that right ?
> 
> Currently the CVS sources produce a version string of "2.15.90 20030506".
> I believe that the origin of the .90 value was the assumption that the
> patch level of a released branch would never reach 90, so it was safe
> to use that in the development  sources.  ie avoiding any possible
> conflict with the to-be-released-in-the-future 2.15 branch and any of
> its patch releases.

Daniel bumped up the version number on mainline to 2.14.90 when he
created the 2.14 release branch. There is no need to do it again.


H.J.