At Wed, 22 May 2002 21:20:47 +0200,
Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> I just want to say that everybody can always get the latest version
> from CVS. Without a release people can still run the latest version,
> so we don't have to release for that.
So what? You're talking about a completely different issue
On Thu, May 23, 2002 at 01:24:54AM +0900, Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote:
> At Wed, 22 May 2002 14:12:01 +0200,
> Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> > Depends on what you call a release and the reasons you have for
> > releases. We actually release after every change we make to the Hurd,
> > the latest release of t
At Wed, 22 May 2002 14:12:01 +0200,
Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> Depends on what you call a release and the reasons you have for
> releases. We actually release after every change we make to the Hurd,
> the latest release of the Hurd is always the version in CVS. GNU 0.2
> is so old that I doubt that an
* Marcus Brinkmann writes:
> On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 01:51:34PM +0900, Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote:
>> I'm sorry that my response is off-topic, but I cannot help saying
>> this, because Robert or Alfred didn't seem to try to fix the root
>> cause.
> Nor could they, although they didn't even reported
On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 01:51:34PM +0900, Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote:
> At Tue, 21 May 2002 16:00:50 +0200,
> Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > Subsequent releases where not done, because between having the Hurd code in
> > CVS and the binary snaphots in Debian, there was little need to rubberstamp
> > a p
On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 01:51:34PM +0900, Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote:
> At Tue, 21 May 2002 16:00:50 +0200,
> Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > Subsequent releases where not done, because between having the Hurd code in
> > CVS and the binary snaphots in Debian, there was little need to rubberstamp
> > a p
At Tue, 21 May 2002 16:00:50 +0200,
Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> Subsequent releases where not done, because between having the Hurd code in
> CVS and the binary snaphots in Debian, there was little need to rubberstamp
> a particular version as 0.3 or whatever.
From Hurd's point of view, that's true.
On Tue, May 21, 2002 at 12:45:30PM +1200, Philip Charles wrote:
> 1. 0.1 could be released for the Hurd and *BSD and not compromise the
> high standard of the GNU/Linux releases.
Just a tidbit of fact, GNU 0.2, and the GNU Hurd 0.2, were released in 1997.
Subsequent releases where not done, becau
On Tue, May 21, 2002 at 12:45:30PM +1200, Philip Charles wrote:
> Going by my experience to date I would suggest independent releases with
> different release managers. IMHO, this would make life a lot easier.
> 1. 0.1 could be released for the Hurd and *BSD and not compromise the
> high standard
On Mon, 20 May 2002, Jack Howarth wrote:
>How exactly do the HURD and BSD* releases fit into
> the future releases. Will the next release past woody
> attempt to release on all those OS's as well as Linux?
> Or will each OS become an independent release of its own?
> That is will there be a te
10 matches
Mail list logo
