On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 7:22 AM, bugs buggy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, lets do it.
Release 2.1 beta 5.
Release 2.2 alpha / beta 1.
Let them have a choice on which version they want to play.
I would think they would want 2.2 for the FMVs, and the improved path
finding, and they can play
bugs buggy schreef:
On 9/24/08, Giel van Schijndel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
bugs buggy schreef:
On 9/22/08, Freddie Witherden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is not a good use of developer time -- which could be better
spent on 2.2 -- ensuring that we never get into this situation again.
This
Per Inge Mathisen schreef:
Also, if we release something directly from trunk without creating a
release branch for it, I think we should not call it a beta. Let's
call it an alpha-1 release. (I do not think we want to maintain two
release branches at the moment.)
Actually I'd prefer not to
Am Donnerstag, 25. September 2008 10:35:27 schrieb Zarel:
2008/9/25 bugs buggy [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Ok, lets do it.
Release 2.1 beta 5.
Release 2.2 alpha / beta 1.
Let them have a choice on which version they want to play.
I would think they would want 2.2 for the FMVs, and the
Am Donnerstag, 25. September 2008 18:04:33 schrieb Giel van Schijndel:
bugs buggy schreef:
If we do have a size limit, it is better to find out from GNA now, rather
than running into this later.
AFAIK we don't have a size limit.
I do not know of any quota enforcement, the docs don't mention
On 9/25/08, Dennis Schridde [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Am Donnerstag, 25. September 2008 10:35:27 schrieb Zarel:
2008/9/25 bugs buggy [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Ok, lets do it.
Release 2.1 beta 5.
Release 2.2 alpha / beta 1.
Let them have a choice on which version they want to play.
On 9/25/08, Per Inge Mathisen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 7:22 AM, bugs buggy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, lets do it.
Release 2.1 beta 5.
Release 2.2 alpha / beta 1.
Let them have a choice on which version they want to play.
I would think they would want 2.2
On 9/25/08, Zarel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/9/24 bugs buggy [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
We got windows builds available nightly.
We should use that to our advantage, and let the community test.
I don't know how we will handle mac builds though. It doesn't look like
we
will have nightly
The Buildbot has detected a new failure of quick_linux on Warzone 2100:
Resurrection Project.
Full details are available at:
http://build.kynes.de/builders/quick_linux/builds/0
Buildbot URL: http://build.kynes.de/
Buildslave for this Build: sparc-debian-lenny-1
Build Reason:
Build Source
Am Donnerstag, 25. September 2008 19:24:01 schrieb bugs buggy:
On 9/25/08, Dennis Schridde [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Am Donnerstag, 25. September 2008 10:35:27 schrieb Zarel:
2008/9/25 bugs buggy [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Ok, lets do it.
Release 2.1 beta 5.
Release 2.2 alpha / beta
Am Donnerstag, 25. September 2008 19:51:48 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The Buildbot has detected a new failure of quick_linux on Warzone 2100:
Resurrection Project. Full details are available at:
http://build.kynes.de/builders/quick_linux/builds/0
Buildbot URL: http://build.kynes.de/
The Buildbot has detected a new failure of full_linux on Warzone 2100:
Resurrection Project.
Full details are available at:
http://build.kynes.de/builders/full_linux/builds/1
Buildbot URL: http://build.kynes.de/
Buildslave for this Build: sparc-debian-lenny-1
Build Reason: The web-page 'force
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 8:19 PM, Dennis Schridde [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unmaintained in a way that bugfixing has no priority (yet).
I can't believe you are saying that. Bug fixing should *always* have priority!
Maybe I am starting to understand why we are in this mess now...
At least for
The Buildbot has detected a new failure of full_linux on Warzone 2100:
Resurrection Project.
Full details are available at:
http://build.kynes.de/builders/full_linux/builds/0
Buildbot URL: http://build.kynes.de/
Buildslave for this Build: sparc-debian-lenny-1
Build Reason: The web-page 'force
Am Donnerstag, 25. September 2008 21:36:49 schrieb Per Inge Mathisen:
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 8:19 PM, Dennis Schridde [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unmaintained in a way that bugfixing has no priority (yet).
I can't believe you are saying that. Bug fixing should *always* have
priority!
Maybe I
Hi all,
In the Vote for what you think is best thread we seemed to have
reached some form of agreement on releasing both 2.1 beta5 alongside a
2.2 beta/alpha/thingy directly from trunk or a release branch otherwise.
In any case, I'm starting this thread for one reason only. I think we
should tag
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 10:10 PM, Giel van Schijndel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the Vote for what you think is best thread we seemed to have
reached some form of agreement on releasing both 2.1 beta5 alongside a
2.2 beta/alpha/thingy directly from trunk or a release branch otherwise.
In any
#79: Minor LasSat changes
--+-
Reporter: Zarel |Type: enhancement
Status: new|Priority: major
Milestone: 2.1| Component: Data: Stats
Version:
#80: Release 2.1_beta5
--+-
Reporter: Giel | Owner:
Type: defect| Status: new
Priority: critical | Milestone: 2.1
Component: other |
Zarel schreef:
2008/9/25 Giel van Schijndel [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi all,
In the Vote for what you think is best thread we seemed to have
reached some form of agreement on releasing both 2.1 beta5 alongside a
2.2 beta/alpha/thingy directly from trunk or a release branch otherwise.
In any
20 matches
Mail list logo
