Re: [Nmh-workers] Announcing the release of nmh-1.7

[Ralph Corderoy]

Hi Ken,

> we never really standardized on it so I can't really fault the
> previous naming

Agreed.  Not everything I write is a complaint.  :-)

> I see no reason not to; I say go ahead!

OK, done that for 1.{2..4}, including matching the original tags' dates.

   200  nmh-1_0                         ""  nmh-1_4
   201  nmh-1_0_2                     1107  1.5-branchpoint
   202  nmh-1_0_3                     1108  1.5-RC1
   203  nmh-1_0_4                     1125  1.5-RC2
   253  kim-before-sasl               1141  1.5-RC3
   504  1.2                           1150  1.5
    ""  RELEASE_1_2                   2384  1.6-branchpoint
   588  nmh-1_3_RC1                   2386  1.6-RC1
   596  nmh-1_3_RC2                   2395  1.6-RC2
   603  nmh-1_3_RC3                   2425  1.6-RC3
   604  1.3                           2430  1.6
    ""  nmh-1_3                       3855  1.7-branchpoint
   664  PRE_POSIX_CONVERSION          3857  1.7-RC1
   670  cvs-repository-moved-to-git   3868  1.7-RC2
   700  nmh-1_4_RC1                   3889  1.7-RC3
   702  nmh-1_4_RC2                   3897  1.7
   703  1.4

`git show' on nmh-1_0* are weird;  I think they might be about just the
FAQ, so I ignored those, and perhaps they're very misleading.  It still
gives 1.{2..7} to play with.

I think these are the earlier releases based on log comments, VERSION,
and ChangeLog.  If it's felt they're correct, then they could be tagged
too.

    20  1.0.1  3b52c3944968810e976ae3ec214
    74  1.0.2  690baeee8169f93061c4f3cfcb8
   123  1.0.3  8146bc09fc2e8ad69520ba998be
   158  1.0.4  da24fe8019b4d05c5f0762db608
   383  1.1    2d1136ddada3b7899baa0a2d9d2

I guess 1.0 is the initial git (CVS) revision?  Or perhaps `Initial
revision' is just the default `cvs init' comment that I've forgotten.

-- 
Cheers, Ralph.
https://plus.google.com/+RalphCorderoy