All,
Release candidate builds for 3.15 have been prepared and are available from
http://download.rockbox.org/release-candidate/f72b908/. They can also be
installed using Rockbox Utility.
Please test these and report any bugs.
Franklin
On Mon, Oct 28, 2019, 3:56 PM Franklin Wei via rockbox-dev <
rockbox-dev@cool.haxx.se> wrote:
> All,
>
> There has been some discussion between William and I on IRC regarding a
> 3.15 release in the near future. We are currently aiming for a November 15
> release date.
All,
There has been some discussion between William and I on IRC regarding a 3.15
release in the near future. We are currently aiming for a November 15 release
date. I will be serving as release manager.
We plan to keep HWCODEC source and builds for this release (though some builds
may be
te
manual.
> We can certainly have a release without having complete manuals for all
> targets.
>
Only if you don't mind the site offering a manual but then delivering a Not
Found, as currently for e.g.
http://download.rockbox.org/release/3.13/rockbox-creativezenxfistyle-3.13.pdf
Chris
nd perform audio decoding in software.
> If by "it" you mean the release, then yes It will have an impact on the
> manual because if the manual is still required, there are lots that need to
> be created.
I don't think the manual is "required" as much as it is nice to
> One more thing... why the question about the manual-less targets ? Will it
> have an impact on the manual (installation ? usage ?) ?
>
If by "it" you mean the release, then yes It will have an impact on the
manual because if the manual is still required, there are lots that
3.14 release
To: "Rockbox development"
Cc: "Chris Jordan"
Date: Thursday, 13 April, 2017, 2:38
There's been some discussion among the developers about
having a
release soon.
Great.
Any thoughts?
What's the intent on the
manual-less targets? The
ery life.
My guess is SW and HW might be alternately the best option depending on how
good the player specs are. I would also would think that HW decoding make more
sense with players showing HiFi oriented components.
This is not only a matter of curiosity : as an end user, opting for a release
>
> What's the intent on the manual-less targets? The last release has many
> targets that are still missing manuals https://www.rockbox.org/
> download/byhand.cgi
>
>
I will have a look at the manuals but you could help... just saying.
> There's been some discussion among the developers about having a
> release soon.
Great.
> Any thoughts?
>
What's the intent on the manual-less targets? The last release has many
targets that are still missing manuals
https://www.rockbox.org/download/byhand.cgi
C
Hi all,
There's been some discussion among the developers about having a
release soon. We've reached the following conclusions regarding
this topic.
The next release will be numbered 3.14, not 4.0. HWCODEC builds
will still be provided this time around, but will be dropped
startin
Hi,
May I post a couple of a simple user comments here :
1- forum/website inactive meaning not many new users : that's logical
considering most ports are discontinued.
BUT also meaning users like me have no problem with rockbox so don't
search forum/site.
2- Ports vs smartphone : I still use
On Wed, 18 Jun 2014 23:20:03 +0200, Frank Gevaerts
wrote:
>On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 08:51:53AM +1200, Tom Cole wrote:
>> There should be a push to complete any unstable ports that are almost
>> finished, such as the fuse+.
>
>You mean there *shouldn't* be a release soo
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 08:51:53AM +1200, Tom Cole wrote:
> There should be a push to complete any unstable ports that are almost
> finished, such as the fuse+.
You mean there *shouldn't* be a release soon>
Frank
--
"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the fir
omming from the
>fact that we are not in feature freeze but some think we should be. The
>only solution IMO is to do release outright. The commit rate is low and
>this are mostly fixes. Current builds seems to be in good shape. Having
>release would allow us to integrate quite invasive
On 18/06/14 11:15, Thomas Martitz wrote:
> Can you please check if http://www.rockbox.org/wiki/ReleaseChecklist
> lacks any items that you've encountered?
>
> BTW, what happened that you became inactive?
>
> Best regards.
I can't see anything particularly obvious, but it has been a while since
l
we should be. The
> only solution IMO is to do release outright. The commit rate is low and
> this are mostly fixes. Current builds seems to be in good shape. Having
> release would allow us to integrate quite invasive synopsys patch which
> would bring us back usb on nano2g and classic
On 18.06.2014 08:43, Thomas Martitz wrote:
> Am 18.06.2014 08:35, schrieb Marcin Bukat:
>> The synopsys patch depends on g#842 which may have side effects on all
>> targets with software usb. In theory we could add it to RC builds and
>> wait for testers but realistically RC builds gets next to no
Am 18.06.2014 11:41, schrieb Alex Parker:
On 18/06/14 07:13, Marcin Bukat wrote:
Hi rockboxers!
Now the question
comes - do we still have release manager (Alex?)
Marcin Bukat (wodz)
Hi guys,
A release sounds like a great idea, it is well well overdue (sorry!).
As is noted later in this
On 18/06/14 07:13, Marcin Bukat wrote:
> Hi rockboxers!
>
> Now the question
> comes - do we still have release manager (Alex?)
>
> Marcin Bukat (wodz)
Hi guys,
A release sounds like a great idea, it is well well overdue (sorry!).
As is noted later in this thread I am rat
t; There are some open bugs that we can address too, perhaps. Alex is
> > inactive so I don't think we have a release manager.
> >
> > Considering the state of the project (activity definitely seems low
> > generally - just look at http://www.rockbox.org/s
aps. Alex is
> inactive so I don't think we have a release manager.
>
>
>
> Considering the state of the project (activity definitely seems low
> generally - just look at http://www.rockbox.org/since-4weeks.html) I
> think a freeze period is a waste of time. If
On 18 June 2014 16:25, Thomas Martitz wrote:
>
> I think we should still have a formal freeze period with RC builds. There
> are some open bugs that we can address too, perhaps. Alex is inactive so I
> don't think we have a release manager.
>
Considering the state of t
Am 18.06.2014 08:35, schrieb Marcin Bukat:
The synopsys patch depends on g#842 which may have side effects on all
targets with software usb. In theory we could add it to RC builds and
wait for testers but realistically RC builds gets next to no testing.
RC builds actually do get testing, es
t that we are not in feature freeze but some think we should be. The
>> only solution IMO is to do release outright. The commit rate is low and
>> this are mostly fixes. Current builds seems to be in good shape. Having
>> release would allow us to integrate quite invasive synopsys pat
not in feature freeze but some think we should
be. The only solution IMO is to do release outright. The commit rate
is low and this are mostly fixes. Current builds seems to be in good
shape. Having release would allow us to integrate quite invasive
synopsys patch which would bring us back usb on
. The
only solution IMO is to do release outright. The commit rate is low and
this are mostly fixes. Current builds seems to be in good shape. Having
release would allow us to integrate quite invasive synopsys patch which
would bring us back usb on nano2g and classic. Now the question comes - do
we
Hello,
Le 09/02/2013 13:56, Alex Parker a écrit :
> Hi all,
>
> I noticed last night that according to the schedule we should have gone
> into feature freeze last week, apologies for missing that. I now
> propose we go into freeze next Saturday ( a week today), followed by
> branching after a
Hi all,
I noticed last night that according to the schedule we should have gone
into feature freeze last week, apologies for missing that. I now
propose we go into freeze next Saturday ( a week today), followed by
branching after another week, then releasing a further week later. This
gives
Hi all,
In preparation for the upcoming release of 3.12, release candidate
builds are available.
Unfortunately the current release of Rockbox Utility doesn't know what
to do with them. A new release will be made soon, but for now
development builds of Rockbox Utility are availabl
Hi all,
We are getting overdue for 3.12 so I'd like to propose some dates.
I've provisionally put the following in the diary:
Sunday 26/08/2012 - Feature Freeze
Sunday 02/09/2012 - Branch
Sunday 09/09/2012 - Release 3.12
Does this strike people as reasonable? That gives us a month
n get started, both on actual testing and on adding new tests, while
> I don't see any disadvantages.
>
> Of course some tests will take longer ("battery life not worse than in
> previous release", "Zork is fully playable on the frotz plugin", ...)
> thin
ests will take longer ("battery life not worse than in
previous release", "Zork is fully playable on the frotz plugin", ...)
think that's a reason not to try to keep the rest short.
Frank
--
"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefor
cs) is that I think we mainly need *wide* testing. We apparently
> have targets (and I'd guess these days this goes for at least half our
> stable targets) that see no testing at all during a release cycle, and
> on some of those targets we then only get two or three comments after
>
we mainly need *wide* testing. We apparently
have targets (and I'd guess these days this goes for at least half our
stable targets) that see no testing at all during a release cycle, and
on some of those targets we then only get two or three comments after
the release about major issues (such
etc but why not. It can help since we
define some common steps and identifying a problem will be easier for
sure!
My 2 cents :)
Some stuff:
http://www.slideshare.net/ruthenry/agile-acceptance-tests
2012/5/29 Bertrik Sikken :
> Hi all,
>
> Last week at devcon euro 2012 we talked about pre
Hi all,
Last week at devcon euro 2012 we talked about pre-release testing and
I'm volunteering to help things forward w.r.t. testing.
One of the problems we've seen with the last release was that really
basic functionality like audio file playback and radio playback did
not work on so
On 03/28/2012 04:37 PM, Frank Gevaerts wrote:
Hello,
I've uploaded some release candidate builds for the 3.11 release to
http://www.hostname.be/3.11RC/ . Please test them and report back,
even if just to say there were no problems (we like those reports!),
either here or on the forums i
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 4:37 PM, Frank Gevaerts wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I've uploaded some release candidate builds for the 3.11 release to
> http://www.hostname.be/3.11RC/ . Please test them and report back,
> even if just to say there were no problems (we like those reports!),
Hello,
I've uploaded some release candidate builds for the 3.11 release to
http://www.hostname.be/3.11RC/ . Please test them and report back,
even if just to say there were no problems (we like those reports!),
either here or on the forums in the 3.11RC thread. The forum thread
about these b
On 28 March 2012 20:55, Mike Giacomelli wrote:
>> On 3/28/2012 9:16 AM, Torne Wuff wrote:
>> > On 28 March 2012 12:21, Jonathan Gordon wrote:
>> >> Sounds good to me. Not sure if I like "stable release" though, what
>> >> are other projects using?
On 28 March 2012 19:13, Dominik Riebeling wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 11:49 AM, Torne Wuff wrote:
>> I propose that we do our best to switch to the following terminology
>> consistently in our written materials:
>>
>> 1) "Stable release": e.g. stable r
> On 3/28/2012 9:16 AM, Torne Wuff wrote:
> > On 28 March 2012 12:21, Jonathan Gordon wrote:
> >> Sounds good to me. Not sure if I like "stable release" though, what
> >> are other projects using? perhaps "official release"?
> > official
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 11:49 AM, Torne Wuff wrote:
> I propose that we do our best to switch to the following terminology
> consistently in our written materials:
>
> 1) "Stable release": e.g. stable release 3.10.
> 2) "Development build": e.g. develo
On 3/28/2012 1:15 PM, Frank Gevaerts wrote:
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 01:05:57PM -0400, Michael Carr wrote:
What about something like "LTS (long-term-service) build"?
Three to four months?
Well, relatively speaking (e.g., compared to the dev builds), it's long
term. It wasn't a literal suggest
Stable Release sounds ideal.
Development Build also good, imo. maybe Development Snapshot and Archived
Development Snapshot. Or "Interim Build"?
On 28/03/12 10:49, Torne Wuff wrote:
Hi folks,
I would like to propose that we change our terminology used to
describe the builds and releases, on the website and in Rockbox
Utility. Currently we talk about "release" and "current build" a lot,
and this confuses users ove
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 01:05:57PM -0400, Michael Carr wrote:
> What about something like "LTS (long-term-service) build"?
Three to four months?
Frank
--
"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by def
On 3/28/2012 9:16 AM, Torne Wuff wrote:
On 28 March 2012 12:21, Jonathan Gordon wrote:
Sounds good to me. Not sure if I like "stable release" though, what
are other projects using? perhaps "official release"?
official release makes it sound like the other builds are not
of
On 28 March 2012 12:21, Jonathan Gordon wrote:
> Sounds good to me. Not sure if I like "stable release" though, what
> are other projects using? perhaps "official release"?
official release makes it sound like the other builds are not
official, which is the wrong disti
Torne Wuff wrote:
> I propose that we do our best to switch to the following terminology
> consistently in our written materials:
>
> 1) "Stable release": e.g. stable release 3.10.
> 2) "Development build": e.g. development build abc123g.
> 3) "Archi
On 28 March 2012 20:49, Torne Wuff wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> I would like to propose that we change our terminology used to
> describe the builds and releases, on the website and in Rockbox
> Utility. Currently we talk about "release" and "current build" a lot,
Hi folks,
I would like to propose that we change our terminology used to
describe the builds and releases, on the website and in Rockbox
Utility. Currently we talk about "release" and "current build" a lot,
and this confuses users over and over who don't understand
Hello everyone
The release schedule said we were going to release today, but
unfortunately there are some nasty bugs left, mainly with USB on the
ipod nano 2G. Until this is fixed releasing is not a very good idea.
This means we'll delay the release until at least next week. I hope
every
Hi all,
As it is getting near that time again, just a little advanced warning of
the proposed dates:
Sunday 04/03/2012 - Feature Freeze
Sunday 11/03/2012 - Branch
Sunday 18/03/2012 - Release 3.11
Let me know if there are any objections.
Alex
B"H
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 3:28 AM, Frank Gevaerts wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 10:16:12PM -0600, Menachem wrote:
> > I have an ipod nano 2G. I just updated to the 3.10RC. When I unplugged
> the
> > player (after safely unmounting it), it recognized that a new version had
> > been installed
On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 5:56 PM, Frank Gevaerts wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I've uploaded some release candidate builds for the 3.10 release to
> http://rockbox.hostname.be/3.10RC/ . Please test them and report back,
> even if just to say there were no problems (we like those reports
On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 10:16:12PM -0600, Menachem wrote:
> I have an ipod nano 2G. I just updated to the 3.10RC. When I unplugged the
> player (after safely unmounting it), it recognized that a new version had
> been installed, and asked me if I wanted to run it. I selected yes, and it
> took lik
B"H
On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 4:56 PM, Frank Gevaerts wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I've uploaded some release candidate builds for the 3.10 release to
> http://rockbox.hostname.be/3.10RC/ . Please test them and report back,
>
> If you encounter bugs, please file bug reports (unl
Hello,
I've uploaded some release candidate builds for the 3.10 release to
http://rockbox.hostname.be/3.10RC/ . Please test them and report back,
even if just to say there were no problems (we like those reports!),
either here or on the forums in the 3.10RC thread. The forum thread
about
esting can help there, so let's try
to get that wide testing.
Provided no new serious bugs are found (or they're fixed fast enough),
we can then release next weekend.
If you have any comments on or objections to these plans, please speak
up soon!
Frank
--
"Debugging is twice
Björn Stenberg wrote:
> It still feels like a "Rockbox emulator", rather than a full-blown android
> music player app.
After I posted this, Hayden Pearce urged me to try his cabbie theme
modification (FS#12254). And after seeing that, I am much more optimistic than
when I wrote the above.
There
- Original Message -
From: Hayden Pearce
To: Rockbox development
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 6:17 AM
Subject: Re: Releasing the android app (was: The next release version)
It's ugly because my theme work isn't committed yet ;)
[Saint]
It's a bit clunky in the w
: Re: Releasing the android app (was: The next release version)
> >
> > Furthermore, every guy I installed Rockbox for liked it. The UI isn't as
> horrible
> > as some people think and the features are just awesome, so I don't see
> why
> > we should
On 26 September 2011 23:05, Amaury Pouly wrote:
> Whether immature or not (fwiw, I disagree), we don't even have current
>> builds do promote it to unstable, for a broader audience and perhaps new
>> contributors.
>
> I agree with this point: if we don't provide a RaaA build, there will
> likely
> -Original Message-
> From: rockbox-dev-boun...@cool.haxx.se [mailto:rockbox-dev-
> boun...@cool.haxx.se] On Behalf Of Thomas Martitz
> Sent: 26 September 2011 10:44
> To: Rockbox development
> Subject: Re: Releasing the android app (was: The next release version)
>
>
> Whether immature or not (fwiw, I disagree), we don't even have current
> builds do promote it to unstable, for a broader audience and perhaps new
> contributors.
I agree with this point: if we don't provide a RaaA build, there will likely
be too few people testing it to get real feedback. Furt
Am Mo, 26.09.2011, 11:22 schrieb Björn Stenberg:
> Thomas Martitz wrote:
>> Then 4.0 is vaporware. At least I see no movement towards an RaaA
>> release.
>> It still needs actions from the swedes (current build signing, market
>> account).
>
> I disagree. It is
Thomas Martitz wrote:
> Then 4.0 is vaporware. At least I see no movement towards an RaaA release.
> It still needs actions from the swedes (current build signing, market
> account).
I disagree. It is not the paperwork that is holding the android app from the
Market. It is the fact t
Am Mo, 26.09.2011, 10:25 schrieb Marcin Bukat:
> I also tend to think upcoming release should be 3.10. I think 4.0
> should be reserved for RaaA. Maybe RaaA is not revolution from the
> technical point o view but it may have HUGE impact on our userbase.
>
> Marcin
>
Then 4.
> Alex Parker wrote:
> > a) 3.10 or 4.0
> > b) why?
>
> a) 3.10
> b) Because the user-facing changes are not big enough to warrant 4.0.
>
+1
+1
Bryan Childs
UC Consultant
RBS Global Banking & Markets
Bankside 2 & 3, 90-100 Southwark Street, London, SE1 0SW, GB
Office: +44 20 3361 2331 | Mo
I also tend to think upcoming release should be 3.10. I think 4.0
should be reserved for RaaA. Maybe RaaA is not revolution from the
technical point o view but it may have HUGE impact on our userbase.
Marcin
On Sep 26, 2011 9:20 AM, "Björn Stenberg" wrote:
>
> Alex Parker wrote:
> > a) 3.10 or 4.0
> > b) why?
>
> a) 3.10
> b) Because the user-facing changes are not big enough to warrant 4.0.
I agree with that too. Even the playback rework for voicing is, in my
opinion, not a major new architectural c
Alex Parker wrote:
> a) 3.10 or 4.0
> b) why?
a) 3.10
b) Because the user-facing changes are not big enough to warrant 4.0.
--
Björn
- Original Message -
From: "Alex Parker"
To: "Michael Sevakis" ; "Rockbox development"
Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2011 7:44 PM
Subject: Re: The next release version
I wasn't actually talking about delaying the release at all, just whether
it sh
On 25/09/11 23:50, Michael Sevakis wrote:
- Original Message - From: Mike Giacomelli
To: rockbox-dev@cool.haxx.se
Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2011 3:58 PM
Subject: RE: The next release version
Would prefer to stay at 3.x until we're ready to release the app on
the android market.
- Original Message -
From: Mike Giacomelli
To: rockbox-dev@cool.haxx.se
Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2011 3:58 PM
Subject: RE: The next release version
Would prefer to stay at 3.x until we're ready to release the app on the
android market.
Mike
Things seem awfully shaken up righ
2011/9/25 Jonas Häggqvist :
> > +1. 2.x->3.x was when SWCODEC was added (and initially 3.0 was planned for
> > Archos+Iriver Hxx0 only IIRC). I'd say the addition of (releasable) Raaa is
> > on the same level.
> >
>
Would prefer to stay at 3.x until we
2011/9/25 Jonas Häggqvist :
> +1. 2.x->3.x was when SWCODEC was added (and initially 3.0 was planned for
> Archos+Iriver Hxx0 only IIRC). I'd say the addition of (releasable) Raaa is
> on the same level.
>
>From a technical point of view, RaaA is a pretty uninteresting target.
SWCODEC brought an e
On 25-09-2011 02:20, Paul Louden wrote:
On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 7:16 PM, Jonathan Gordon wrote:
3 - no other target has caused a major bump so why should android
be different?
I do agree 3.10 looks a bit funny. But on the issue of Android being
different from the other targets, it's more
On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 7:16 PM, Jonathan Gordon wrote:
> 3 - no other target has caused a major bump so why should android
> be different?
I do agree 3.10 looks a bit funny. But on the issue of Android being
different from the other targets, it's more the transition from
"Rockbox as a firmwa
serious response:
a) 4.0
b) 1 - there has been plenty of stuff commited in the last release
which gives us a good enough reason to bump the major number
2 - 3.10 looks a bit funny
3 - no other target has caused a major bump so why should android
be different?
4 - the numbers are
a) 3.10
b) because history says that whatever I suggest will be outright rejected
On 25 September 2011 09:59, Alex Parker wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> So the next release is due towards the end of October, and in the past there
> has been some discussion as to whether the version number sh
I think we're still at 3.X at the moment too. I don't think this
version brings anything worth increasing the major version number.
Hi guys,
So the next release is due towards the end of October, and in the past
there has been some discussion as to whether the version number should
be 3.10 or 4.0. Myself I lean towards 3.10, and keeping 4.0 for e.g. an
Android release but I am not too determined either way.
What do
Hi all,
I've made a start of the release notes at
http://www.rockbox.org/wiki/ReleaseNotes39
Please have a look and add/correct as necessary.
Thanks,
Alex
Hi All,
Just a quick reminder that we release tomorrow, so if you have any last
minute translation updates or fixes then please get them in ASAP. Once
I start building tomorrow evening (EU time) then I won't have any time
to restart.
Cheers,
Alex
etagged, but not both at
> the same time.
>
> Robert Kukla views this new behavior as a feature regression, and I tend
> to agree with him. It might be possible to restore fuzzy matching with
> a better method for distinguishing known from new tracks (again, see
> FS#12076 for details
restore fuzzy matching with
a better method for distinguishing known from new tracks (again, see
FS#12076 for details). But I likely won't be able to implement and test
a new method before the next release.
This raises the question what should be done in the meantime. I prefer
the cu
Hello chaps,
The current 3.9 release schedule can be seen here:
https://www.google.com/calendar/embed?src=rockbox.calen...@gmail.com
As you can see, the freeze is scheduled for Monday 13 June with the
normal schedule thereafter. I've moved the main events to Mondays from
Sundays in the
Hi all,
Rockbox 3.8 is upcoming, and to prepare for that we have some release
candidates available.
You can download them from here:
http://rockbox.hostname.be/3.8RC/
They will need to be installed manually - the manual has instructions,
but basically you unzip the archive to your player
Hello all,
According to the current plan [1] we are approaching the time for the
3.8 release. The feature freeze is planned for next Sunday 13th
February, with branching on the 20th, and release on the 27th.
If anyone has any serious concerns with this then please speak up (with
good
Alex Parker wrote:
> 1) Release manager.
> Frank Gevaerts and myself have declared ourselves willing
Very good initiative. I agree two people is better than one for this role. And
I can't imagine any better candidates than you two.
> 2) Release calendar
Good idea. I'
the RM(s) is to prod,
> poke and otherwise annoy people to backport bug fixes, or indeed to do it
> themselves if possible. It would also be the RMs responsibility to decide
> when to do a point release, and to see through the process.
It would be nice if commits which are supposed to be back
Hi all,
With 3.7 just out of the door, I think it would be timely to formalise the
process somewhat. I have a number of proposals that I'd value people's
opinions on.
1) Release manager.
I think we need someone in this role, to keep an eye on what should happen
when, send out e
Are we still frozen, or did we actually freeze already?
I'm bitter that we don't appear to have a coordinated release plan this
time. Nobody seems to know where we are at yet (apart from the idea to
release on October 29).
I would also like to see a call for translators again, th
On 10/12/2010 9:28 AM, Marcin Bukat wrote:
That's exactly my point - version number is to place particular
release in some chronological order nothing more.
This is patently not true. If chronological order were the only purpose,
there would be no reason not to just use the release
2010/10/12 Paul Louden :
> Meanwhile, if we go from 3.7 to 3.8 to
> 3.9 to 4.0 to 4.1, the version number no longer communicates anything but
> sequence and we may as well have just used the SVN revision of the release
> in the first place.
That's exactly my point - version n
On 10/12/2010 3:02 AM, Marcin Bukat wrote:
I don't like discontinuity in release numbering. For me such practice
is pure marketing.
Marcin Bukat
Release numbering is pure marketing in the first place. "3.7" doesn't
mean anything useful other than "it came after a
2010/10/12 Frank Gevaerts :
> On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 10:47:06PM +0100, Dave Chapman wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> The "Release 3.7, freeze on Monday" thread seems to have been hijacked,
>> so to bring the subject up again, are we freezing now?
>
> I think we shoul
1 - 100 of 435 matches
Mail list logo
