Marco Atzeri via Cygwin-apps writes:
> It will also make a hypothetical future upgrade hard.
> Is 2.0.0-1 major of 2.0.0-b9-1 ?
Upstream would probably say yes, but they might chose to release a 2.0.1 instead.
> PS: I wonder if having a test version 4 years old that is clearly not
> moving at all and not bug fixed really worth to have
FWIW, I have the beta version installed on Cygwin because I did need the address
chain feature once. There is no indication that the two bugfixes to the
1.7.x releases are also present in the 2.0.x beta branch, so the absence
of new releases probably just means that development has stalled
(upstream continues to ask for "patience" with respect to feature
requests), not that bugfixes are languishing. But I haven't checked in
much detail which code the last to fixes touch.
Am 31.03.2020 um 18:19 schrieb ASSI:
> Marco Atzeri via Cygwin-apps writes:
>> It will also make a hypothetical future upgrade hard.
>> Is 2.0.0-1 major of 2.0.0-b9-1 ?
> Upstream would probably say yes, but they might chose to release a 2.0.1 instead.
The problem is how setup logic will judge.
In alphabetic order, letters are bigger than number so
2.0.0-b9-1 > 2.0.0-1
and upgrade will likely not happen