Re: Is this a bug for zsh 4.2.3?

[Peter Stephenson <pws@xxxxxxx>]

Bart Schaefer wrote:
> Hrm.  I don't have much either, I'm in the midst of an unpleasant chest
> cold.  What's involved nowadays?  If, for example, I set up a patches
> branch in CVS, can you make tarfiles to put wherever?  (Or are we now
> trying to avoid having a patches branch?)

I would think so...

> Though it would be nice to get the Cygwin patches for the configure
> scripts (mentioned by someone last week) in there as well.

I haven't seen what's involved (it seems to compile so I don't know
what the problem is).

> Meanwhile, what's the scheme nowadays for version numbering the dev
> versions in CVS?  It's presently 4.2.3-dev-1, but it seems like it
> should be either 4.3.0-dev-1 or 4.2.4-dev-1.

We keep the individual sets of digits in a logical order, so 4.2.3-dev-1
is after 4.2.3.  This makes automated version testing work (is_at_least,
for example).  Test versions break this but they're supposed to be short
lived (using 4.2.3-test-A would work and I think I've done something like
that in the past).

The other fix is to sacrifice a version number that will never be released.

-- 
Peter Stephenson <pws@xxxxxxx>                  Software Engineer
CSR PLC, Churchill House, Cambridge Business Park, Cowley Road
Cambridge, CB4 0WZ, UK                          Tel: +44 (0)1223 692070


**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the system manager.

This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by
MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.

www.mimesweeper.com
**********************************************************************