What's still needed to build the Windows 2.0.1 installers?

[Aaron Bentley]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

John Arbash Meinel wrote:
> I think bzrtools is only locked to 'micro', so 2.0.2 won't require a
> 2.0.2 bzrtools, though it may have one if there are bugfixes.

Yes, only the "2.0" portion of bzrtools "2.0.1" is locked to bzr.  The
final digit reflects bugfixes to bzrtools itself.

> I believe
> Aaron stated that he isn't going to be focusing as much on 2.1.0
> releases of bzrtools, since it is in 'beta' status, and thus drift and
> breakage is more acceptable.

I just meant that I'm not going to borrow trouble by making the bzrtools
version check stricter than it already is.  Lately, I've had several
bzrtools releases where all I had to do was change the version number,
so I'm going to see if I can get away without doing those for the beta
series.  I will release new versions of bzrtools when I find API
incompatibilities.

Although bzrtools isn't using bzr's built-in API detection, I have other
plugins that do.  I do think it's a bit weird that bzr has built-in
support for detecting the API changes in bugfix releases like 2.0.2, but
doesn't have support for detecting the much more significant API changes
between beta releases.

Aaron
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkrkdbcACgkQ0F+nu1YWqI0bPwCeKtD4JCVJK+3VQgCE0Wc5SVuF
DfYAn0tl3s0gETEW5zAed4CoBP52CHII
=QtVg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----