[Lazarus] Test the Lazarus fixes_0_9_30 branch

[Vincent Snijders]

2011/2/12 John Stoneham <captnjameskirk at gmail.com>:
> On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 8:35 AM, Bernd Kreuss <prof7bit at googlemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> communicated much better with more "standard" terminology and the 0.9.30
>> RC should not be named 0.9.29 and RC should be labeled as such and not
>> "fixes" because "fixes" would imply maintenance of an already released
>> branch.
>>
>
> This is the second time the above has been mentioned, so let me make it a
> third. I realize there is a lot of work to do and few people doing it, so
> maybe this would be really low down on priorities. But when we're building
> 0.9.30 from svn, and then the fixes branch is forked and supposed to
> continue and stabilize upon it, it's just downright confusing for it to
> suddenly change to 0.9.29 in our builds. So the fixes branch is really an RC
> branch, right? Why not have the version numbering in the fixes branch be
> 0.9.30RC rxxxxx, even 0.9.30f rxxxxx ("f" for "fixes")? At least it would
> limit some of the confusion over which is which.

It is only a RC branch until the release after that is a fixes branch.
Maybe it would confuse people less, if it the branch is renamed, but I
doubt that.

Vincent