Maybe a 1.1.0?

[Alan DeKok]

Frank Cusack <fcusack at fcusack.com> wrote:
> The better way to do that is to tag dev releases 'b' or 'a' or whatever.
> I guess you did say that.  But FR hasn't been in the habit of issuing
> beta or dev releases other than CVS head.  So it's not that we haven't
> been following a common versioning approach, we've just never formally
> released dev code.

  My goal in splitting the work over multiple releases is to get the
pieces tested in isolation.  We know that the current 1.0.x libtool,
configure, etc. works.  It may be a pain, but it works.

  First, I'd like to get more RADIUS functionality in 1.1.x, then
upgrade the auto* tools.

  I don't think anyone's going to upgrade past 1.0.x if the next rev
has little more than autoconf updates.  And adding multiple features
to the same release makes me wary, which is one reason I haven't been
pushing hard for a 2.0.

  Alan DeKok.