Re: [Swarm-Support] 'make check' error

[Scott Christley]

On Feb 8, 2011, at 7:05 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:

> On 02/03/2011 01:02 PM, Scott Christley wrote:
>> Hey Paul,
>> 
>> Are you willing to make two RPMs?  I think we should have a 2.3.X version 
>> which is the old stable Swarm.  Then the 2.4.X release will be the brand new 
>> stuff with the objc runtime abstraction work, GNUstep, etc.
>> 
>> I expect to do more releases on the 2.3.X train because I'm trying to get 
>> that version into Debian.
> 
> YES, I can make RPMs if you give me the tarballs.  No problem.
> 
> I wish we could call the new working versions 2.4.x, so we are numbering from 
> where I said June 2010 is version 2.4. It
> will be less confusing for me and others. Call the new "working series" 
> 2.4.X. This way, we get back to the "even
> numbers" are workable versions model that we used to love so much.

Oh I see.  I wasn't aware of this even/odd norm for numbering.

> There were quite a few changes in the trunk leading up to the time when I 
> said "June 2010 is 2.4".  If you start
> releasing 2.3.X again, then I'm going to get a lot of emails about "why did 
> your version numbers go backward?"

The Swarm 2.4 you have up on your website is the "wholly new from outer space 
thing".  But I think I get what you are saying.  I can release a 2.4 tarball 
which is the best "working series" Swarm.  However once you have that you 
should get rid of the 2.4 stuff on your website, otherwise people might be 
confused about how different the source code is between the two.

Scott