>>>Jan Willies schrieb am 29.06.2009 um 09:52:
> Hi Joachim,
>
> Am 29.06.2009 09:49, schrieb J.W.:
Well, I am not keen on doing this, but to get some progress I at least did
>>> upload my git tree based on vdr-1.6.0-2 version of
>>> git://vdr.gekrumbel.de/vdr.git to github:
>>>
>>> http://gith
Hi Joachim,
Am 29.06.2009 09:49, schrieb J.W.:
>> Well, I am not keen on doing this, but to get some progress I at least did
>> upload my git tree based on vdr-1.6.0-2 version of
>> git://vdr.gekrumbel.de/vdr.git to github:
>>
>> http://github.com/zzam/vdr/tree/stable
>> git://github.com/zzam/vdr.
> Well, I am not keen on doing this, but to get some progress I at least did
> upload my git tree based on vdr-1.6.0-2 version of
> git://vdr.gekrumbel.de/vdr.git to github:
>
> http://github.com/zzam/vdr/tree/stable
> git://github.com/zzam/vdr.git
> Branch "stable"
>
> It contains up to now o
>>>Matthias Schwarzott schrieb am 28.06.2009 um 21:55:
> On Samstag, 27. Juni 2009, Udo Richter wrote:
>> On 25.06.2009 21:55, Ville Skyttä wrote:
>> >> Hmmm, this could also be a great opportunity: Why not nominate someone
>> >> as the official maintainer of the 1.6 stable branch? Someone who
>>
On Samstag, 27. Juni 2009, Udo Richter wrote:
> On 25.06.2009 21:55, Ville Skyttä wrote:
> >> Hmmm, this could also be a great opportunity: Why not nominate someone
> >> as the official maintainer of the 1.6 stable branch? Someone who
> >> collects or back-ports fixes and smaller enhancements to th
On 25.06.2009 21:55, Ville Skyttä wrote:
>> Hmmm, this could also be a great opportunity: Why not nominate someone
>> as the official maintainer of the 1.6 stable branch? Someone who
>> collects or back-ports fixes and smaller enhancements to the 1.6 branch,
>> and does minor releases based on comm
Am 25.06.2009 21:55, schrieb Ville Skyttä:
> On Sunday 21 June 2009, Udo Richter wrote:
>> On 21.06.2009 17:08, Klaus Schmidinger wrote:
>>> On 17.06.2009 19:03, J.W. wrote:
I thought you could just release vdr-1.6.1 with the patches you have
already published (maybe with additional dvb_a
On Sunday 21 June 2009, Udo Richter wrote:
> On 21.06.2009 17:08, Klaus Schmidinger wrote:
> > On 17.06.2009 19:03, J.W. wrote:
> >> I thought you could just release vdr-1.6.1 with the patches you have
> >> already published (maybe with additional dvb_api patch) . Are there more
> >> bugfixes plane
On 21.06.2009 17:08, Klaus Schmidinger wrote:
> On 17.06.2009 19:03, J.W. wrote:
>> I thought you could just release vdr-1.6.1 with the patches you have
>> already published (maybe with additional dvb_api patch) . Are there more
>> bugfixes planed?
>
> I released VDR 1.6.0 only because several peop
On 17.06.2009 19:03, J.W. wrote:
> I thought you could just release vdr-1.6.1 with the patches you have
> already published (maybe with additional dvb_api patch) . Are there more
> bugfixes planed?
I released VDR 1.6.0 only because several people wanted to have
a stable release just before switchi
I thought you could just release vdr-1.6.1 with the patches you have already
published (maybe with additional dvb_api patch) . Are there more bugfixes
planed?
2009/6/17 Klaus Schmidinger
> On 06/16/09 10:30, Joachim Welker wrote:
> > Hi Klaus,
> > I see you are very busy in developing the new vd
On 06/16/09 10:30, Joachim Welker wrote:
> Hi Klaus,
> I see you are very busy in developing the new vdr-1.7.* (thanks for your
> great work !). But what about stable vdr-1.6.0? You released two patches
> which should result in version vdr-1.6.1. AFAIR there were no complaints
> about these patches
On Dienstag, 16. Juni 2009, VDR User wrote:
> The patch vdr-dvb-api-5-is-fine.diff is not a proper "fix" iirc.
Ok, so where is the problem, and how should a proper fix look like?
Regards
Matthias
___
vdr mailing list
vdr@linuxtv.org
http://www.linuxtv.o
The patch vdr-dvb-api-5-is-fine.diff is not a proper "fix" iirc.
___
vdr mailing list
vdr@linuxtv.org
http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
On Dienstag, 16. Juni 2009, Joachim Welker wrote:
> Hi Klaus,
> I see you are very busy in developing the new vdr-1.7.* (thanks for your
> great work !). But what about stable vdr-1.6.0? You released two patches
> which should result in version vdr-1.6.1. AFAIR there were no complaints
> about thes
Hi Klaus,
I see you are very busy in developing the new vdr-1.7.* (thanks for your
great work !). But what about stable vdr-1.6.0? You released two patches
which should result in version vdr-1.6.1. AFAIR there were no complaints
about these patches, so I think it's save to release vdr-1.6.1 in orde
16 matches
Mail list logo
