On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Philip Hands wrote: > (3.0r1a perhaps, which seems to be what is in the Release file anyway) > or simply overwrite them? Given that they were publicly visible for a > few hours before I realised that they needed to be regenerated, there > might be copies of them out there already, so perhaps it's best to > rename them.
please overwrite them. there would be extra (unneeded) confusion at this point with 3.0r1a. > Admittedly, I've not signed the MD5SUMS yet, so they don't count as > official anyway, and I doubt it will injure anyone seriously to have a > slightly outdated README, so perhaps I should just overwrite them when > the new images turn up in a few hours. got my vote. Do you have an ETA on when "Official" 3.0R1 isos will be produced (e.g a few more days? a week?). Can we _not_ release the existing iso images (outside of image/developer/mirror testing) because i can already sense that people will release them into the wild and i will get complaints from users about why we are not making 3.0r1 images available when they have already been released.. Also, are there any plans to produce a "3.0 -> 3.0r1" update iso officially with this release as well as an official "NetInst" release to go with it ? regards, -jason
