> At 07:29 PM 7/1/2004, Greg Stein wrote: > >On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 05:38:34PM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > >> If we leave it, and side-by-side installs are broken, this does not seem > >> like a good initial release point for 1.0 :( > > > >"for the moment" > > > >Joe said it *twice*. Was it that non-obvious? > > No, it was obvious. However another party is rolling what he hopes to be > the initial release on Friday, on his schedule. So if we *release* on Fri > this would not be good. If it gets fixed next week and we can hold the > release till next week, all would be lovely. > > Competing interests - and my message wasn't directed at Joe or Graham
Damn. Competing interests? So, no-one else wants to get 1.0 out teh door. Wow, must have been in dream land for a long, long time then... > who have been working hard at the rpm/parallel install issues. It was > directed at David who was hoping (expecting?) to roll an RC3 candidate > today. Well, some form of explanation of the above would be more helpful than cryptic comments. 1/10 on helpfulness. david
