From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=)
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] gnu: yelp: Update to 3.21.3
Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2016 15:57:19 +0200
Message-ID: <87twdxkrwg.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <1472321979-10150-1-git-send-email-john@darrington.wattle.id.au>
	<87eg52jvbq.fsf@gnu.org> <20160902145637.GA7099@gnu.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:32810)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>) id 1bgBRp-0002ot-2n
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Sep 2016 09:57:30 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>) id 1bgBRj-0005ix-Ro
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Sep 2016 09:57:28 -0400
In-Reply-To: <20160902145637.GA7099@gnu.org> (John Darrington's message of
	"Fri, 2 Sep 2016 10:56:37 -0400")
List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution."
	<guix-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:guix-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: "Guix-devel" <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
To: John Darrington <jmd@gnu.org>
Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org

John Darrington <jmd@gnu.org> skribis:

> On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 03:16:25PM +0200, Ludovic Court??s wrote:
>> John Darrington <john@darrington.wattle.id.au> skribis:
>>=20
>> > From: John Darrington <jmd@gnu.org>
>> >
>> > * gnu/packages/gnome.scm (yelp): Update to 3.21.3
>>=20
>> My understanding is that odd minor version numbers denote development
>> releases, no?  In that case we should wait for 3.22.x.
>>=20
> I didn't know that gnome did and it was downloaded from the canonical gno=
me distribution site.
> I checked all the READMEs there and I don't see any mention of such a pol=
icy.

See <https://www.gnome.org/gnome-3/source/>.  This is why =E2=80=98guix ref=
resh
-t gnome=E2=80=99 won=E2=80=99t upgrade to odd minor numbers; see (guix
gnu-maintenance).

> But feel free to revert if you think appropriate.

I=E2=80=99ll let you do it if you don=E2=80=99t mind.  :-)

Thanks,
Ludo=E2=80=99.