Hi Peter,
Am 23.10.18 um 05:03 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
> I am a bit confused where we all are now. I think all Issues are
> resolved and currently we are not aware on regressions right?
>
> If r1844555 has not been build yet, then please start. :) I would like
> to do some signing.
Now I am a bit c
r1844555 was the SVN version of HEAD at the time of the email.
FWIW, my macOS builds of RC1 are ready... CentOS5-64 are in progress.
> On Oct 23, 2018, at 6:03 AM, Matthias Seidel
> wrote:
>
> Hi Peter,
>
> Am 23.10.18 um 05:03 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>> I am a bit confused where we all are now
Am 23.10.18 um 13:06 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
> r1844555 was the SVN version of HEAD at the time of the email.
Yes, and it increases by the time of writing...
So it gives no information about what revision the RC should be build upon?
>
> FWIW, my macOS builds of RC1 are ready... CentOS5-64 are in
Important is we build with the same revision.
Are all builds now with r1844436?
Great if I do not have to sign anything. I gladly delegate that to the
builders. ;-)
Am 23. Oktober 2018 13:12:37 MESZ schrieb Matthias Seidel
:
>Am 23.10.18 um 13:06 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>> r1844555 was the SVN
Hi Peter,
Am 23.10.18 um 13:19 schrieb Peter kovacs:
> Important is we build with the same revision.
> Are all builds now with r1844436?
Revision 1844436 confirmed for Windows.
>
> Great if I do not have to sign anything. I gladly delegate that to the
> builders. ;-)
The release manager build
Yes.
> On Oct 23, 2018, at 7:19 AM, Peter kovacs wrote:
>
> Important is we build with the same revision.
> Are all builds now with r1844436?
>
> Great if I do not have to sign anything. I gladly delegate that to the
> builders. ;-)
>
>
> Am 23. Oktober 2018 13:12:37 MESZ schrieb Matthias S
Hi Peter,
Am 17.10.18 um 07:36 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
> Hello all,
>
> I do not find my last approach. So Lets start a new run.
>
> I rewrote the argumentation to maybe now better Ideas. Please help to
> finish this.
>
> So the draft looks currently like this:
After 6 days I think we can assume la
On 10/23/2018 4:21 PM, Matthias Seidel wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> Am 17.10.18 um 07:36 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>> Hello all,
>>
>> I do not find my last approach. So Lets start a new run.
>>
>> I rewrote the argumentation to maybe now better Ideas. Please help to
>> finish this.
>>
>> So the draft looks
