Hi Eric, * Eric Blake wrote on Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 02:38:47PM CEST: > > Should this have been numbered 2.59d? I thought the odd-letter extensions > were for CVS versions, and the even-letter extensions are for alpha > releases. Or is that only libtool following that convention? As far as I know, Libtool is following that convention, but Autoconf is not. The nonexistent 2.59a was because Paul found some claims of a 2.59a version in the wild[1]. To tell you the truth, I've thought quite long about naming it 2.59d last night; IMHO it would have been clearer. I decided against it because I wasn't totally sure about all consequences of changing configure.ac right before the release; it would have required me to checkin all Makefile.in's with `cvs ci -f', for example, in order to make sure the CVS contains an exact copy of what goes in the tarball. BTW, I did such a `cvs ci -f' round after the change to 2.59d after the release, so that potential contributors do not experience spurious automake reruns. I believe it may be a good idea to follow a similar release numbering as Libtool[2] also in Autoconf. That would be to have the odd last part of the version number/character as CVS versions, and the even ones as release versions. But it would clearly be inconsistent with what Autoconf has had up until now: 2.59 is stable, and 2.59c is now a released (alpha) version. Apologies BTW for the messed-up Mail-Followup-To: header of the release announcement. This and some other nits that have come up last night will be sorted out in due course, soon.. Cheers, Ralf [1] http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/autoconf/2004-08/msg00082.html [2] http://www.gnu.org/software/libtool/contribute.html under the headline "Release Numbering" _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
