Re: "Virtual" version 2.4 (and probably 2.6, potentially 2.8)

[EricZolf]

Hello again,

I've now pushed the tag `v2.4.0+unreleased`, it doesn't trigger anything 
and it's pretty clear what is meant. Only drawback is that `./setup.sh 
--version` complains but I don't think it will break anything (return 
code is still 0).

If someone wonders, message is:

$ ./setup.py --version
/usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/setuptools_scm/version.py:91: 
UserWarning: tag 'v2.4.0+unreleased' will be stripped of its suffix 
'+unreleased'
  warnings.warn(
2.4.1.dev6+gdb79f6b

It was just for information, nobody needs to do anything.

KR, Eric

On 06/10/2023 07:48, EricZolf wrote:
> Hi,
>
> sorry for the mess, but pushing a "virtual" version wasn't such a good 
> idea, it triggered release of versions I wasn't aware of (AUR and 
> Homebrew).
>
> So I've removed the tag and apologize to whomever is responsible for 
> those distros. Sorry for any confusion I might have created, v2.4.0 was 
> never meant to get released (only for the weekly release), so please 
> remove it if you (maintainer) are reading those lines.
>
> Sorry, Eric
>
> PS: PyPI was also impacted but I'm the responsible, so already removed.
>
> On 02/10/2023 09:02, EricZolf wrote:
> > BTW, the empty changelog for the weekly release is normal, as it is 
> > the changelog since the last release, so 2.4.0, so nothing...
> >
> > KR, Eric
> >
> > On 01/10/2023 18:54, EricZolf wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > if someone would pay attention, they would have noticed that I just 
> > > pushed a tag version v2.4.0 and updated accordingly the changelog.
> > >
> > > Don't be surprised or confused. As I wrote in a previous e-mail, I 
> > > don't plan to release it, but it just shows that the code has evolved 
> > > compared to the latest 2.2.6 version.
> > >
> > > Tonight's weekly release [0] will accordingly be released without the 
> > > old CLI (check the changelog for details), and it would be nice if 
> > > some of you could test it making sure that nothing is broken, after 
> > > this rather important change [1]. But check it only tomorrow!
> > >
> > > It'll take probably a bit longer but I'm currently removing 
> > > everything related to API 200 / rdiff-backup 2.0.x, and will probably 
> > > tag it with version 2.6 (also unreleased), and then it would again be 
> > > good to have people test that nothing broke in API 201, e.g. against 
> > > version 2.2.
> > >
> > > We could wait until 3.0 is out to test, but I would prefer to go step 
> > > by step and make sure nothing breaks before too many changes are made 
> > > to know where the issue appeared.
> > >
> > > Thanks, Eric
> > >
> > > [0] https://github.com/rdiff-backup/rdiff-backup/releases/tag/weekly
> > > [1] 32 files changed, 243 insertions(+), 1708 deletions(-)