Re: [RFC] new development version?!

2003-01-28 Thread Stipe Tolj
Bruno David Simões Rodrigues wrote: > > Citando Stipe Tolj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > Hi list, > > > > we had a couple of bug fixes now since 1.3.0 and I'd like to release a > > new development version. Any vetos?! > > +0 for me > > > Which versioning should be used for it? 1.3.1? > certainly.

Re: [RFC] new development version?!

2003-01-27 Thread Bruno David Simões Rodrigues
Citando Stipe Tolj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Hi list, > > we had a couple of bug fixes now since 1.3.0 and I'd like to release a > new development version. Any vetos?! +0 for me > Which versioning should be used for it? 1.3.1? certainly. Please don't cvs tag 1.3.1 before I commit my debian packagi

Re: [RFC] new development version?!

2003-01-26 Thread Alexander Malysh
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Stipe,List, On Sunday 26 January 2003 13:44, Stipe Tolj wrote: > Hi list, > > we had a couple of bug fixes now since 1.3.0 and I'd like to release a > new development version. Any vetos?! it's a good idea ;) > > Which versioning should be used fo

[RFC] new development version?!

2003-01-26 Thread Stipe Tolj
Hi list, we had a couple of bug fixes now since 1.3.0 and I'd like to release a new development version. Any vetos?! Which versioning should be used for it? 1.3.1? BTW, anyone working on the long outstanding WTLS issue?! I think it would be pretty cool to have that fully implemented. Stipe [E