From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: John Darrington Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] gnu: yelp: Update to 3.21.3 Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2016 10:56:37 -0400 Message-ID: <20160902145637.GA7099@gnu.org> References: <1472321979-10150-1-git-send-email-john@darrington.wattle.id.au> <87eg52jvbq.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:33102) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bfptm-0000Zm-ON for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 02 Sep 2016 10:56:55 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bfptl-0005AI-0o for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 02 Sep 2016 10:56:53 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87eg52jvbq.fsf@gnu.org> List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: Ludovic Court??s Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 03:16:25PM +0200, Ludovic Court??s wrote: > John Darrington skribis: > > > From: John Darrington > > > > * gnu/packages/gnome.scm (yelp): Update to 3.21.3 > > My understanding is that odd minor version numbers denote development > releases, no? In that case we should wait for 3.22.x. > I didn't know that gnome did and it was downloaded from the canonical gnome distribution site. I checked all the READMEs there and I don't see any mention of such a policy. But feel free to revert if you think appropriate. J'