On Wed, 2004-02-18 at 15:28, Jim Jagielski wrote:
I'd like to float the idea of releasing 1.3.30 soonish.
Not only are there enough changes to warrant a release, but
also to coincide with the changeover to AL 2.0.
In response to this, how do we feel about doing 2.0.49
aswell?
Sander
We have a showstopper, don't we?
On Feb 18, 2004, at 12:34 PM, Sander Striker wrote:
On Wed, 2004-02-18 at 15:28, Jim Jagielski wrote:
I'd like to float the idea of releasing 1.3.30 soonish.
Not only are there enough changes to warrant a release, but
also to coincide with the changeover to AL
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004, Sander Striker wrote:
In response to this, how do we feel about doing 2.0.49
aswell?
+1, but let's make sure to get the mod_usertrack fix finally committed.
Jim already committed it to 1.3.x as far as I know, and there's no reason
not to commit it to 2.0.x and 2.1.x except
, all, for helping fix this bug.
Cheers,
-Manni
-Original Message-
From: Cliff Woolley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2004 1:33 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Time for 2.0.49, WAS: Re: Time for 1.3.30??
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004, Sander Striker wrote
+1
Brad
Brad Nicholes
Senior Software Engineer
Novell, Inc., the leading provider of Net business solutions
http://www.novell.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Wednesday, February 18, 2004 10:34:44 AM
On Wed, 2004-02-18 at 15:28, Jim Jagielski wrote:
I'd like to float the idea of releasing 1.3.30
Jim,
Now I understand. Thanks to you and Cliff for helping stomp this bug!
-Manni
-Original Message-
From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2004 3:06 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Time for 2.0.49, WAS: Re: Time for 1.3.30??
Manni,
What I
