propagate next.minor to i.p.p?

[John Bailey]

Ka-Hing Cheung wrote:
> I have this xmlnode change (attached, deals with preserving node name
> and attribute prefixes) that would require a minor bump, which is
> required for msnp14 to behave correctly. MSNP14 is already in i.p.p, so
> that would require us to bump the minor whenever we release a version
> off of i.p.p. If there's no objection, I will propagate next.minor to
> i.p.p some time tomorrow.
> 
> -khc

As I stated in the XMPP conference, I'm in favor of merging
im.pidgin.pidgin.next.minor to im.pidgin.pidgin, then releasing a 2.2.3 from
im.pidgin.pidgin.2.2.3.  After that, we can decide if we need a 2.2.4 or if we
can go straight to 2.3.0.

John

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://pidgin.im/pipermail/devel/attachments/20071104/78f0b111/attachment.sig>