gary wrote: > This is probably a dumb comment, but I assume users should be running > the released revision of grass, not the current CVS, so I don't see the > need to provide binaries for a moving target. Or does the development > team believe users should run the CVS?
As Hamish says, it's up to the users whether they want to use a release or the CVS version. The CVS version has the latest features, but is subject to change without notice. It's hard to say which version has fewer bugs; bug fixes will appear in the CVS version before they appear in a release. OTOH, any new bugs will also appear in CVS first. Obviously, it's better for GRASS development if people use the CVS versions. We need all the beta-testers that we can get. It's debatable whether users should be using binaries from CVS. If you're going to use a CVS version, you may as well take advantage of the ability to update it regularly without having to download a completely new binary package each time. OTOH, native Windows and MacOSX support will typically be significantly further advanced in the CVS version compared to the latest release, and building from source on those platforms is probably more problematic than it is on Linux. -- Glynn Clements <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _______________________________________________ grassuser mailing list grassuser@grass.itc.it http://grass.itc.it/mailman/listinfo/grassuser
