Previously Nate Duehr wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 09:37:33PM +0200, Bernd Hentig wrote:
> > AFAIK, the only kernels worth having in either binary or source
> > are (in release order) 2.0.36, 2.0.17, 2.0.19, 2.4.2.
>
> You don't like *any* of the 2.2 series?
Considering he said `in release o
On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 09:37:33PM +0200, Bernd Hentig wrote:
> AFAIK, the only kernels worth having in either binary or source
> are (in release order) 2.0.36, 2.0.17, 2.0.19, 2.4.2. All others are
> either junk and pretty unstable or useless (at least IMHO).
> So, I've never really seen any use i
> Sorry for having been this silent. In the past few days I've spent many hours
> on getting debian-cd ready for 2.2 rev3 (issues you mentioned, updated/
> redesigned README (matching www.d.o but actually better code) and the
> long-promised "make-a-useful-CD1" project which involved lots of test
On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 03:15:34PM +0100, lance wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, Martin Schulze wrote:
>
> > lance wrote:
>
> > > Sorry - the difference between 1.2.1, 1.2.2 and 2.1r2, 2.2r3 escapes me -
> > > is the 'r' supposed to have special meaning ??
> >
> > short for "revision" which has the
"J.A. Bezemer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Sorry for having been this silent. In the past few days I've spent
> many hours on getting debian-cd ready for 2.2 rev3 (issues you
> mentioned, updated/ redesigned README (matching www.d.o but actually
> better code) and the long-promised "make-a-usefu
On Fri, Apr 20, 2001 at 12:08:17AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
>
>On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 03:00:41PM +0100, lance wrote:
>
>> If it turns out that the changes take up more than a CD then maybe it
>> shouldnt be a point release after all ??
>
>I doubt the changes run to anything like a CD full. How
On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, Martin Schulze wrote:
> lance wrote:
> > Sorry - the difference between 1.2.1, 1.2.2 and 2.1r2, 2.2r3 escapes me -
> > is the 'r' supposed to have special meaning ??
>
> short for "revision" which has the meaning of minor version.
So I suppose it should really be 2.2.3r1 the
On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 03:00:41PM +0100, lance wrote:
> Sorry - the difference between 1.2.1, 1.2.2 and 2.1r2, 2.2r3 escapes me -
> is the 'r' supposed to have special meaning ??
'r' is for revision. 2.2r3 is a minor revision of 2.2.
2.2.3 looks like a new version. The different escapes me too --
lance wrote:
> > Do you advertise your CD set as "2.2r2", or just "2.2"? I think
> > the latter would be accurate enough, and should help to avoid
> > complaints from your customers that your CDs are too old.
Actually that was the idea behind it, cd vendors don't advertise
2.2.3 or 2.2r3 but ``2.2
lance wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 01:45:50PM +0100, lance wrote:
> > > All I am asking for is enough time to make a reasonable effort at making
> > > and shipping the version before the next version is released. If you want
> > > to have interi
>Do you advertise your CD set as "2.2r2", or just "2.2"? I think
>the latter would be accurate enough, and should help to avoid
>complaints from your customers that your CDs are too old.
Perhaps it would help for someone to produce a "2.2r0 - 2.2r3 upgrade kit"
image that could be burned onto a s
On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 01:45:50PM +0100, lance wrote:
> > All I am asking for is enough time to make a reasonable effort at making
> > and shipping the version before the next version is released. If you want
> > to have interim releases with minor fix
On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 11:45:33PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 01:45:50PM +0100, lance wrote:
> > All I am asking for is enough time to make a reasonable effort at making
> > and shipping the version before the next version is released. If you want
> > to have interim rel
On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 01:45:50PM +0100, lance wrote:
> All I am asking for is enough time to make a reasonable effort at making
> and shipping the version before the next version is released. If you want
> to have interim releases with minor fixes - why not call them 2.2r3.1 etc
> and produce an
On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 03:02:45PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > > > > > Considering how stable releaes were handled recently or better how
> > > > > > they weren't handled properly with regards to our duty to our users,
> > > > > > my plan is to release a new point release of stable about every
Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 01:45:50PM +0100, lance wrote:
> > > > > Considering how stable releaes were handled recently or better how
> > > > > they weren't handled properly with regards to our duty to our users,
> > > > > my plan is to release a new point release of stable about
On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 01:45:50PM +0100, lance wrote:
>
>The other alternative would be to produce an update cd that contained the
>updates from 2.2r2 to 2.2r3 - especially if the update cd could be the cd
>to install from :)
>
>All I am asking for is enough time to make a reasonable effort at mak
lance wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, Martin Schulze wrote:
>
> > lance wrote:
> > > On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > >
> > > > Considering how stable releaes were handled recently or better how
> > > > they weren't handled properly with regards to our duty to our users,
> > > > my pla
On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 01:45:50PM +0100, lance wrote:
> The other alternative would be to produce an update cd that contained the
> updates from 2.2r2 to 2.2r3 - especially if the update cd could be the cd
> to install from :)
That's not a bad idea, really. A minimal CD#1 that includes all the
ch
On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 01:45:50PM +0100, lance wrote:
> > > > Considering how stable releaes were handled recently or better how
> > > > they weren't handled properly with regards to our duty to our users,
> > > > my plan is to release a new point release of stable about every one to
> > > > two m
On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, Martin Schulze wrote:
> lance wrote:
> > On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, Martin Schulze wrote:
> >
> > > Considering how stable releaes were handled recently or better how
> > > they weren't handled properly with regards to our duty to our users,
> > > my plan is to release a new point r
On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 01:50:36PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Le Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 09:16:11AM +0200, Martin Schulze écrivait:
> > > Also - is there any chance that .iso images or pseudo image
> > > configurations could be ready _before_ the release is announced - eg
> > > tonight cdimage.de
On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Le Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 09:16:11AM +0200, Martin Schulze écrivait:
> > > Also - is there any chance that .iso images or pseudo image
> > > configurations could be ready _before_ the release is announced - eg
> > > tonight cdimage.debian.org still has
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Le Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 09:16:11AM +0200, Martin Schulze écrivait:
> > > Also - is there any chance that .iso images or pseudo image
> > > configurations could be ready _before_ the release is announced - eg
> > > tonight cdimage.debian.org still has no idea about 2.2r3 - s
Le Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 09:16:11AM +0200, Martin Schulze écrivait:
> > Also - is there any chance that .iso images or pseudo image
> > configurations could be ready _before_ the release is announced - eg
> > tonight cdimage.debian.org still has no idea about 2.2r3 - shouldnt .isos
> > be part of th
On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 09:16:11AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > Also - is there any chance that .iso images or pseudo image
> > configurations could be ready _before_ the release is announced - eg
> > tonight cdimage.debian.org still has no idea about 2.2r3 - shouldnt .isos
> > be part of the r
lance wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, Martin Schulze wrote:
>
> > Considering how stable releaes were handled recently or better how
> > they weren't handled properly with regards to our duty to our users,
> > my plan is to release a new point release of stable about every one to
> > two monthts. I
On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Considering how stable releaes were handled recently or better how
> they weren't handled properly with regards to our duty to our users,
> my plan is to release a new point release of stable about every one to
> two monthts. I'll continue to prepare r
Considering how stable releaes were handled recently or better how
they weren't handled properly with regards to our duty to our users,
my plan is to release a new point release of stable about every one to
two monthts. I'll continue to prepare releases and help our
ftp-masters with this.
Having
29 matches
Mail list logo
