Re: [Mingw-w64-public] RFC: How shall we plan releases of new major versions?

2012-10-27 Thread JonY
On 10/28/2012 06:01, Erik van Pienbroek wrote: > Jacek Caban schreef op do 25-10-2012 om 14:51 [+0200]: >> A few more words about ensuring stability: We mostly know what risky >> changes have been made and we occasionally hear back from users when >> something breaks. I myself would know quickly if

Re: [Mingw-w64-public] RFC: How shall we plan releases of new major versions?

2012-10-27 Thread Erik van Pienbroek
Jacek Caban schreef op do 25-10-2012 om 14:51 [+0200]: > A few more words about ensuring stability: We mostly know what risky > changes have been made and we occasionally hear back from users when > something breaks. I myself would know quickly if something really bad > happened. I do Mozilla code

Re: [Mingw-w64-public] RFC: How shall we plan releases of new major versions?

2012-10-27 Thread Erik van Pienbroek
Kai Tietz schreef op wo 24-10-2012 om 21:19 [+0200]: > Hello everybody, > > I want to raise this discussion on public mailing-list, as mingw-w64's > release-cycle might be also of interest to some of our users. Right > now we do the major-release by gut feeling with a background plan > about feat

Re: [Mingw-w64-public] RFC: How shall we plan releases of new major

2012-10-27 Thread JonY
On 10/27/2012 19:33, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > On Oct 26 21:11, Herb Thompson wrote: >> On 2012-10-26 1:35 PM, Earnie Boyd wrote: >>> On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 12:27 PM, Ruben Van Boxem >>> wrote: Also, can someone clarify that you only need to be able to provider the source when aske

Re: [Mingw-w64-public] RFC: How shall we plan releases of new major

2012-10-27 Thread Corinna Vinschen
On Oct 26 21:11, Herb Thompson wrote: > On 2012-10-26 1:35 PM, Earnie Boyd wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 12:27 PM, Ruben Van Boxem > > wrote: > >> > >> Also, can someone clarify that you only need to be able to provider the > >> source when asked for it vs providing it in some public place, w