Re: [Xastir] No Maps .... Still

2007-03-29 Thread Ray Wells
Curt, WE7U wrote: On Tue, 27 Mar 2007, Ray Wells wrote: After much drama I finally found a deb package for Graphicsmagick and it appears to be working - gm display brings up the logo. However, when I run configure for xastir (1.8.5) it complains it can't find GraphicsMagick-configure, and

Re: [Xastir] Stable release plus version numbering

2007-03-29 Thread Tom Russo
On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 02:05:08PM -0500, we recorded a bogon-computron collision of the <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> flavor, containing: > Tom Russo wrote: > > > >To be honest, I don't give a rip about the convention at all, but have a > >bit of an attachment to major-release bumps being significant chan

Re: [Xastir] Stable release plus version numbering

2007-03-29 Thread Gerry Creager
Tom Russo wrote: On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 09:19:27AM -0500, we recorded a bogon-computron collision of the <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> flavor, containing: v1.9.0 (APX190). So we're off on even/odd numbers. You're going for a stable release, right? Stables, in my book, are not even numbers. How many

Re: [Xastir] Stable release plus version numbering

2007-03-29 Thread Tom Russo
On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 10:12:25AM -0700, we recorded a bogon-computron collision of the <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> flavor, containing: > On Thu, 29 Mar 2007, Tom Russo wrote: > > > > In other words go to 1.10 instead of 2.0, and make the next devel > > > version be 1.11? > > > > No, I was thinking more

Re: [Xastir] Stable release plus version numbering

2007-03-29 Thread Curt, WE7U
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007, Tom Russo wrote: > > In other words go to 1.10 instead of 2.0, and make the next devel > > version be 1.11? > > No, I was thinking more like the next stable release would be 1.9.0 and > the next devel snapshot would be 1.9.1, etc. Which makes us non-compliant with the Release

Re: [Xastir] Stable release plus version numbering

2007-03-29 Thread Tom Russo
On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 09:19:27AM -0500, we recorded a bogon-computron collision of the <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> flavor, containing: > v1.9.0 (APX190). So we're off on even/odd numbers. You're going for a > stable release, right? Stables, in my book, are not even numbers. How many conventions do

Re: [Xastir] Stable release plus version numbering

2007-03-29 Thread Tom Russo
On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 06:46:36AM -0700, we recorded a bogon-computron collision of the <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> flavor, containing: > On Wed, 28 Mar 2007, Jeremy Utley wrote: > > > As a non-developer I would agree with this as well. Major changes > > usually involve changes in the ABI/API that make

Re: [Xastir] Stable release plus version numbering

2007-03-29 Thread Gerry Creager
v1.9.0 (APX190). So we're off on even/odd numbers. You're going for a stable release, right? Stables, in my book, are not even numbers. gerry Curt, WE7U wrote: On Wed, 28 Mar 2007, Jeremy Utley wrote: As a non-developer I would agree with this as well. Major changes usually involve chang

Re: [Xastir] Stable release plus version numbering

2007-03-29 Thread Curt, WE7U
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007, Steve Huston wrote: > Sheesh, Curt of all people you shouldn't be thinking so decimally. > > APX1A0 > APX1B0 ... > > So you've got until 1.16.0 to worry. :P Hey, I started out without any assembler, compiler, whatever. I can easily work in binary or hex. Or octal if I have

Re: [Xastir] Stable release plus version numbering

2007-03-29 Thread Steve Huston
On 03/29/2007 09:46 AM, Curt, WE7U wrote: > This might muck with the TOCALL a bit. Right now we're sending > APX185. We'd need to send APX110 which would appear to be going > backwards in our revisions. Sheesh, Curt of all people you shouldn't be thinking so decimally. APX1A0 APX1B0 ... So y

Re: [Xastir] Stable release plus version numbering

2007-03-29 Thread Jason Winningham
On Mar 29, 2007, at 8:46 AM, Curt, WE7U wrote: This might muck with the TOCALL a bit. Right now we're sending APX185. We'd need to send APX110 which would appear to be going backwards in our revisions. do it in hex? APX1A0 -Jason kg4wsv ___ Xas

Re: [Xastir] Stable release plus version numbering

2007-03-29 Thread Chip G.
On Mar 29, 2007, at 09:46, Curt, WE7U wrote: In other words go to 1.10 instead of 2.0, and make the next devel version be 1.11? This might muck with the TOCALL a bit. Right now we're sending APX185. We'd need to send APX110 which would appear to be going backwards in our revisions. Go

Re: [Xastir] Lockup Troubles (Mac)

2007-03-29 Thread Chip G.
On Mar 28, 2007, at 10:44, Curt, WE7U wrote: On Tue, 27 Mar 2007, Chip G. wrote: Things had been going well, but recently I've started having periodic lockups. The symptoms are that I will come along and check the machine and find that it Xastir is frozen. What version of Xastir? The ab

Re: [Xastir] Stable release plus version numbering

2007-03-29 Thread William McKeehan
Are you going to fork the development tree and maintain the 1.10 version as stable with patches? If not, then I'd just go with 1.9.0 for the stable and 1.9.1 for the development. Not sure what I would suggest for the next stable release; maybe it's time to let 1.9 sit and begin real work on 2.0

Re: [Xastir] Stable release plus version numbering

2007-03-29 Thread Curt, WE7U
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007, Jeremy Utley wrote: > As a non-developer I would agree with this as well. Major changes > usually involve changes in the ABI/API that makes things incompatible > with the previous release, or large changes in the code base that > almost makes it an entirely new application.