Last one gets my vote. whichever we go for it needs to be CLEARLY documented
:)
david
- Original Message -
From: "Justin Erenkrantz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 2:42 AM
Subject: Re:
At 07:42 PM 3/30/2003, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>--On Sunday, March 30, 2003 7:31 PM -0600 "William A. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL
>PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>No... I like the every-other thought. I'd go odds-devel/evens-release.
>
>And, what exactly is a odds-devel release?
>
>To clarify, what has been sugge
--On Sunday, March 30, 2003 7:31 PM -0600 "William A. Rowe, Jr."
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
No... I like the every-other thought. I'd go odds-devel/evens-release.
And, what exactly is a odds-devel release?
To clarify, what has been suggested for the odds/even policy is this:
1.0.0:
1.0.1:
1.0.
At 06:00 PM 3/30/2003, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>IIRC, there was some sentiment to burn every other minor patch number until we
>hit 1.0. So, there would be no 0.9.2 only 0.9.2-dev and 0.9.3. I'm very
>uncomfortable with such a scenario (what's the point of -dev then?). It just
>doesn't make
--On Friday, March 28, 2003 12:35 PM -0600 "William A. Rowe, Jr."
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
No, the discussion below is the question;
"Should release 0.9.x follow after 0.9.x-dev? Or shouldn't
we release 0.9.(x+1) following the efforts in 0.9.x-dev?"
The standing issue is this; libapr.so.0.
