-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Adam Thornton wrote:
> On Jul 12, 2007, at 8:56 AM, Kern Sibbald wrote:
>
>> On Thursday 12 July 2007 15:21, Dan Langille wrote:
>>> On 12 Jul 2007 at 15:15, Kern Sibbald wrote:
If no one wants to test the Win32 version and report back on it
On Jul 12, 2007, at 8:56 AM, Kern Sibbald wrote:
> On Thursday 12 July 2007 15:21, Dan Langille wrote:
>> On 12 Jul 2007 at 15:15, Kern Sibbald wrote:
>>> If no one wants to test the Win32 version and report back on it
>>> (particularly Vista, Vista VSS, and reparse points), I will test it
>>> my
On Monday 16 July 2007 18:08, Alan Brown wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007, Kern Sibbald wrote:
>
> >> I hate to say this, but history shows that it usually leads to a great
> >> deal of shouting and hatemail from the peanut gallery.
Well, I am not too worried about the shouting from the peanut galler
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007, Kern Sibbald wrote:
>> I hate to say this, but history shows that it usually leads to a great
>> deal of shouting and hatemail from the peanut gallery.
>>
>> Kern, how many hours/how much cost is involved in validating the Win*
>> binaries?
This was actually a genuine questio
On Monday 16 July 2007 13:28, Alan Brown wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jul 2007, Dan Langille wrote:
>
> >> If no one wants to test the Win32 version and report back on it
(particularly
> >> Vista, Vista VSS, and reparse points), I will test it myself. However,
in
> >> that case, I am condering not makin
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007, Dan Langille wrote:
>> If no one wants to test the Win32 version and report back on it (particularly
>> Vista, Vista VSS, and reparse points), I will test it myself. However, in
>> that case, I am condering not making the binaries available on Source Forge,
>> but on some oth
On Thursday 12 July 2007 16:36, Adam Thornton wrote:
> On Jul 12, 2007, at 8:56 AM, Kern Sibbald wrote:
> > On Thursday 12 July 2007 15:21, Dan Langille wrote:
> >> On 12 Jul 2007 at 15:15, Kern Sibbald wrote:
> >>> If no one wants to test the Win32 version and report back on it
> >>> (particularly
On 12 Jul 2007 at 8:42, Robert LeBlanc wrote:
> Does this mean that Debian packages would be dropped since it would
> not be 'free' to distribute the binaries? I'm not an expert on legality
> issues, so please help clear my understanding.
AFAIK, and I don't mind being corrected on this, anyone c
On 7/12/07 7:56 AM, "Kern Sibbald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday 12 July 2007 15:21, Dan Langille wrote:
>> On 12 Jul 2007 at 15:15, Kern Sibbald wrote:
>>> If no one wants to test the Win32 version and report back on it
>>> (particularly Vista, Vista VSS, and reparse points), I will t
On Thursday 12 July 2007 15:21, Dan Langille wrote:
> On 12 Jul 2007 at 15:15, Kern Sibbald wrote:
> > If no one wants to test the Win32 version and report back on it
> > (particularly Vista, Vista VSS, and reparse points), I will test it
> > myself. However, in that case, I am condering not makin
On 12 Jul 2007 at 15:15, Kern Sibbald wrote:
> If no one wants to test the Win32 version and report back on it (particularly
> Vista, Vista VSS, and reparse points), I will test it myself. However, in
> that case, I am condering not making the binaries available on Source Forge,
> but on some
11 matches
Mail list logo
