Christian Anthon <address@hidden>
wrote on 30/03/2009 11:19:09:
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 11:43 AM, Massimiliano Maini
> <address@hidden> wrote:
> > I do agree we should have a stable branch for version 1.0beta.
> > I still hear many players using old gnubg version arguing that
the new ones
> > are not stable enough. It's hard to make them understand that
the old ones,
> > despite being stable, are also buggy.
> This is not going to be a branch, but the main line. I'm going to
> the code to make it easier to identify.
Up to you to decide if 1.0 will be a branch or the
main trunk, what matters is that 1.0 and 2.0 are on separate branches (i.e. one
on main, other on a branch).
> Furthermore, the daily > snapshots shouldn't be used for our "official"
Right. We will have a 1.0 stable (or alpha or whatever)
download and a "latest" download (well flagged as work in progress,possibly