[Qgis-developer] What's up with the 2.0.2 designation?

[Radim Blazek]

On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 10:41 AM, Alex Mandel
<tech_dev at wildintellect.com> wrote:
> My understanding of the discussion was that bugfix releases were tabled
> (put on hold) until after the 2.0 release in order to let everyone work
> on the 2.0 release. As others have mentioned on other threads a bugfix
> release in the 2.0.x series would make a lot of sense to tackle all of
> the regressions that people are finding.
>
> We could set a deadline though, maybe a cutoff of one month since
> release for bugs to tackle for bugfix and then a set time of several
> months to try and fix them? Though with the packaging issue maybe it's
> better to tackle the bugs in groups since that needs to get fixed soon.
> I'm on the fence if purely packing fixes should get a number bump. It
> might not be a bad idea to make it clear to end users that it's newer.
>
> So Idea:
> 2.0.2 packaging fixes
> 2.0.3 in a couple months bugfix release

This sounds reasonable to me. More formalized:
* no regular bugfixes to release-2_0 branch until all packaging issues
are resolved and new release is tagged (most probably final-2_0_2, but
may be final-2_0_3, ... if another packaging issue appears)
* open release-2_0 for regular bugfixes once packaging issues are
solved (will be announced by release manager)

Is it acceptable for release manager, PSC and others?

I am asking because I have fix for #8724 (96bd7e7f) and I am willing
to backport it to release-2_0 but I am not sure if I am allowed and
when.

Radim