From: "Luke-Jr" <luke@dashjr.org>
To: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@exmulti.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 23:53:08 -0400
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/2.6.39-gentoo; KDE/4.6.5; x86_64; ; )
References: <201109261518.37283.luke@dashjr.org>
	<CA+8xBpdFpULC9LrG8NUrKqh37V2-jBm+YFTX6RsB=E8XUkDj9g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+8xBpdFpULC9LrG8NUrKqh37V2-jBm+YFTX6RsB=E8XUkDj9g@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201109272353.10956.luke@dashjr.org>
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Miscommitted version
Precedence: list

On Tuesday, September 27, 2011 11:44:43 PM Jeff Garzik wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 3:18 PM, Luke-Jr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:
> > * 6b8a5ab Bump version to 0.4.1
> > 
> > This should be some pre-0.5.0, not 0.4.1 which will be the stable team's
> > first release...
> 
> No.  Technically speaking this most recent release was 0.4.0.  That is
> what is serialized in the build, and what is tagged.

I'm aware of that.

> Any stable version based off the most recent release would be 0.4.0.1.

Ok. That's not usually how versions work, though. Gavin also recently stated 
that the next version after 0.4.0 was to be 0.5, which is why the commit was a 
surprise. I'm just trying to clarify what version number to use for stable, 
and getting apparently mixed answers.

> And of course you're following the "upstream must have merged this fix
> first" rule, right?

Yep.