On Mon, Jul 30, 2001 at 12:23:48AM +0000, Mikhael Goikhman wrote: > On 29 Jul 2001 02:28:52 +0200, Dominik Vogt wrote: > > > > I have been thinking about the plans for the next release and > > about the long way we had to go for 2.4. Dan is absolutely right > > when he wants to find a way to establish a shorter release cycle. > > 2.4 took to much time and I doubt I have the endurace for such an > > herculean effort again. There are a *lot* of things that were > > postponed until after 2.4 that could be done now. All the small > > enhancement requests and bug fixes alone may justify another > > release. > > > > I believe 2.4 got out of hand because we tried to do everything at > > once at first and then there were too many dependencies in the > > code to be resolved so that we could not release although we > > wanted to. It may be better to plan for a 2.6 release that comes > > up with many small enhancements, bug fixes and maybe even some of > > the bigger but less disruptive features. A new stable release > > within half of a year semms to be a good plan to me. > > > > What do you think? > > If we already go for 2.6 in some months, maybe grab cvs before Xinerama > commits and release 2.4.1 based on it? The current one may become 2.5.0. > This is somewhat similar to what I and Olivier suggested previously.
I think I don't understand what you are saying. What do you mean with "maybe grab cvs before Xinerama commits and release 2.4.1 based on it"? Bye Dominik ^_^ ^_^ -- Dominik Vogt, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.fvwm.org/>. To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm-workers" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To report problems, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
