On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 10:27:48 +0100
David Paleino d.pale...@gmail.com wrote:
dunno about other package formats but I suppose they have similar
mechanisms. I have no problem with that, it's obviously doable,
just thought I'd mention it in case someone didn't think of it.
I already thought
On Friday 13 February 2009, Freddy Vulto wrote:
David Paleino d.paleino at gmail.com writes:
On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 00:11:41 +0200, Ville Skyttä wrote:
On Wednesday 04 February 2009, David Paleino wrote:
On Wed, 04 Feb 2009 21:59:25 +0100, Guillaume Rousse wrote:
I'd insert the
On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 14:14:29 + (UTC), Freddy Vulto wrote:
[..] maybe we'd better release bash_completion-2 (or ..200902xx) [..]
I was starting a branch for the release process... what version number you
believe is sane?
I'd start at 1.0, (so as not to be necessarily linked to the bash
David Paleino d.paleino at gmail.com writes:
On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 14:14:29 + (UTC), Freddy Vulto wrote:
[..] maybe we'd better release bash_completion-2 (or ..200902xx) [..]
I was starting a branch for the release process... what version number you
believe is sane?
I'd start at
On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 11:25:08 + (UTC), Freddy Vulto wrote:
David Paleino d.paleino at gmail.com writes:
On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 14:14:29 + (UTC), Freddy Vulto wrote:
[..] maybe we'd better release bash_completion-2 (or ..200902xx) [..]
I was starting a branch for the release
David Paleino d.paleino at gmail.com writes:
On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 00:11:41 +0200, Ville Skyttä wrote:
On Wednesday 04 February 2009, David Paleino wrote:
On Wed, 04 Feb 2009 21:59:25 +0100, Guillaume Rousse wrote:
I'd insert the following items between 1 and 2, or between 2 and 3:
