Prepare a minor release (v2.3.1)

[guihkx]

This is needed because the AppImages of release 2.3.0 are broken.

@nuttyartist Let me know if your schedule is tight and I can handle this release (I'll open a PR for review first).

---

TODO:

• Draft a new release (Prepare v2.3.1 release #702)
• Tag v2.3.1 and push it
• Make a new GitHub release
• Edit release v2.3.0 to inform Linux users to use the v2.3.1 AppImages instead
• Update UPDATES_FOSS.json (Update UPDATES_FOSS.json for v2.3.1 #705)
• Update website's links (Update download links for version 2.3.1 notes-foss-website#2)
• Update SnapStore
• Update FlatHub (notes: Update notes.git to 2.3.1 flathub/io.github.nuttyartist.notes#12)
• Update AUR package (@zjeffer)

[nuttyartist]

Yes, please do!

[nuttyartist]

Shouldn't we just re-upload the 2.3.0 AppImages, actually?

[guihkx]

Shouldn't we just re-upload the 2.3.0 AppImages, actually?

I really dislike changing already-released binaries like that. It's a really bad practice, IMHO.

I think we should just edit the 2.3.0 release, and put a notice there informing users that the AppImages are broken, and that they should use 2.3.1 instead...

[nuttyartist]

Fair, we should inform users. Let's do it.

[nuttyartist]

I added a few more TODOs (:

[guihkx]

@nuttyartist I noticed that the Notes.2.3.0.dmg file in release v2.3.0, points to the Qt 5 build, instead of the Qt 6 (x86_64 + arm64) one. Is that intended?

[guihkx]

I think that was a mistake, because in v2.2.0, Notes.2.2.0.dmg is the Qt 6 build, which makes more sense, IMO.

[nuttyartist]

@nuttyartist I noticed that the Notes.2.3.0.dmg file in release v2.3.0, points to the Qt 5 build, instead of the Qt 6 (x86_64 + arm64) one. Is that intended?

Nope, it is a mistake! Good catch.

[zjeffer]

Updated the aur package: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/notes

[guihkx]

Well done, I completely forgot about it...