On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 5:09 AM, Kaveh R. GHAZI <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Fri, 14 Mar 2008, Joe Buck wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 05:58:12PM -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > > > On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 7:36 PM, Gerald Pfeifer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Mon, 3 Mar 2008, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > > > > > Do we still want to keep this branch alive? > > > > > > > > Looking at the changes that were made in the last three months still, > > > > it seems the branch is still surprisingly alive, so it may not yet be > > > > the time to close it. Personally I don't have a preference either > way, > > > > but I'll update our main page to reflect the current status (no new > > > > releases, among others) a bit better and if the decision is to close > > > > it down volunteer to take the necessary steps. > > > > > > The alternative would to be to make a final release and close it. > > > We have two options. What do people think? > > > > If there are nontrivial bug fixes in the SVN branch but not in the last > > 4.1.x release, I think it would be better to use the > > final-release-then-close approach, so that there is an available tarball on > > fsf.gnu.org that has all of the work and people don't have to use SVN > > or a snapshot for anything. > > I support the final-release-then-close approach. But can we get a > volunteer to convert that branch to GPLv3... ?
I strongly object to moving the 4.1 brach to GPLv3. Richard.
