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

[Volker Fröhlich]

On 27/09/13 10:41, Alex Mandel wrote:
> On 09/26/2013 10:54 PM, Paolo Cavallini wrote:
>> Il 26/09/2013 23:16, MORREALE Jean Roc ha scritto:
>>
>>> It does or otherwise most users will never notice that a newer and different package
>>> is available
>>
>> word can be spread through website, social networks, etc.
>> I agree releasing a fixed package with GRASS and SAGA is quite important, even if for
>> a minority of users.
>> All the best.
>
>
> 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
>
>
> Thanks,
> Alex

That whole discussion is actually only relevant for Windows, as I 
perceive it. If you're using whatever repository with GNU/Linux or the 
likes, packagers will bump package release numbers on packaging issues 
(and other issues) and you'd get an updated package without doing a lot. 
As Jürgen said, there is no point in having a new _QGIS release_ because 
of packaging issues.

Volker