From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Jacobowitz Subject: Re: [libvirt] Re: Changing the QEMU svn VERSION string Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 13:58:44 -0400 Message-ID: <20090407175844.GA17004@caradoc.them.org> References: <49DABC83.7010608@codemonkey.ws> <49DB0A6C.9080200@redhat.com> <20090407090322.GC31447@redhat.com> <49DB5AAE.8050205@codemonkey.ws> Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: libvir-list@redhat.com, Gerd Hoffmann , kvm-devel To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <49DB5AAE.8050205@codemonkey.ws> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: qemu-devel-bounces+gceq-qemu-devel=gmane.org@nongnu.org Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+gceq-qemu-devel=gmane.org@nongnu.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org On Tue, Apr 07, 2009 at 08:52:46AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote: > I think that's going to lead to even more confusion. While I'm inclined > to not greatly mind 0.10.99 for the development tree, when we do release > candidates for the next release, it's going to be 0.11.0-rc1. I don't > expect RPMs to ever be created from non-release versions of QEMU provided > we stick to our plan of frequent releases. FWIW, GDB uses 6.8.50 (devel branch), 6.8.90 (release branch), 6.8.91 (rc1). That's worked out well for us. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery