Re: [Bug-gnubg] version 1.0

[Christian Anthon]

On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 11:43 AM, Massimiliano Maini
<address@hidden> wrote:
>
> I do agree we should have a stable branch for version 1.0beta.
> I still hear many players using old gnubg version arguing that the new ones
> are not stable enough. It's hard to make them understand that the old ones,
> despite being stable, are also buggy.

This is not going to be a branch, but the main line. I'm going to tag
the code to make it easier to identify. Furthermore, the daily
snapshots shouldn't be used for our "official" released versions.

>
> Another thing we should do is stop having the version number
> hardcoded in config.h (which is not a source file, it is somehow generated).
> Would it be possible to have in a source file (backgammon.h) ?
>

This is where the autotools put it (it is defined in configure.in),
and it is used for different things (generation of source tarballs for
example). I'll start putting it in the win32 makefile,. Jon will have
to change the windows build zip file accordingly.

Christian.