Re: [fossil-dev] Fwd: [fossil-users] Proposed roadmap for Fossil 2.0

2017-03-30 Thread Stephan Beal
On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 9:24 PM, Richard Hipp wrote: > On 3/30/17, Jan Nijtmans wrote: > > Ping .Could this be decided for Fossil 2.2? Please? > > libfossil is a non-trivial undertaking. Because of the way Fossil is > currently architected, libfossil is basically a ground-up rewrite. >

Re: [fossil-dev] Fwd: [fossil-users] Proposed roadmap for Fossil 2.0

2017-03-30 Thread Richard Hipp
On 3/30/17, Jan Nijtmans wrote: > Ping .Could this be decided for Fossil 2.2? Please? libfossil is a non-trivial undertaking. Because of the way Fossil is currently architected, libfossil is basically a ground-up rewrite. -- D. Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org _

[fossil-dev] Fwd: [fossil-users] Proposed roadmap for Fossil 2.0

2017-03-30 Thread Jan Nijtmans
Ping .Could this be decided for Fossil 2.2? Please? Thanks, Jan Nijtmans -- Forwarded message -- From: Roy Marples Date: 2017-02-26 23:03 GMT+01:00 Subject: Re: [fossil-dev] [fossil-users] Proposed roadmap for Fossil 2.0 To: fossil-...@lists.fossil-scm.org On 26/

Re: [fossil-dev] Ready to release version 2.2?

2017-03-30 Thread Ross Berteig
On 3/30/2017 10:57 AM, Richard Hipp wrote: Now that SQLite 3.18.0 has landed, I think it would be good to do a Fossil 2.2 release. Objections? Concerns? I have a couple of test cases I'd like to beat into better shape. As of [f21820f4ab] I'm seeing fossil passing all tests, but that includes

[fossil-dev] Ready to release version 2.2?

2017-03-30 Thread Richard Hipp
Now that SQLite 3.18.0 has landed, I think it would be good to do a Fossil 2.2 release. Objections? Concerns? -- D. Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org ___ fossil-dev mailing list fossil-dev@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mail