Michelle Konzack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Sorry for my late answer... > > Am 2004-04-14 11:57:17, schrieb Bernard Lang: > >On Wed, Apr 14, 2004 at 11:07:05AM +0200, Dominik Vogt wrote: > >> On Wed, Apr 14, 2004 at 01:32:53AM +0100, Ukpong Ukpong wrote: > >> > Hi all I am doing a projects using a fvwm and need to know the most > >> > stable fvwm version in the 2.5.x series to use. > >> > >> If you need a stable version, use the latest 2.4.x release. None > >> of the 2.5.x releases can be called stable. > > > >and in what time frame, very approximately, is a stable release > >(version 2.6.x I guess) of 2.5 to be expected ? > > ... or is it intended only for hackers, but not for normal users ?
Anyone can use 2.5.x. If you send mail to this list and ask for a stable release you will be referred to a 2.4.x release since that is the stable branch. Probably some of the 2.5.x releases are more stable than other 2.5.x releases, but I don't think anyone knows which ones are more stable and which ones aren't. When a 2.5.x release is created it's almost always done with a source tree that we think works well. In my opinion, the only 2.5.x release that it makes sense to use is the latest one. > I am using 2.5.8 as backport for Debian/WOODY and it works quiet well ;-) All thru the 2.5.x release I've run from CVS and I've had very few problems. I don't think that makes it stable through. -- Dan Espen E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL: http://www.fvwm.org/>. To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To report problems, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
