Scribit Ian Eslick dies 03/04/2007 hora 14:42:
> However none of [the portability ports] change the user experience or
> significantly enhance the current operational stability of the
> project. I'd be willing to look at this happening on a separate
> branch post-1.0, but I think it would be a dist
Pierre,
- confidence that there can't be data loss when using it,
I believe the current Elephant guarantees no data loss, or I would
not recommend a 1.0 release. I trust it in my own work, at least.
You can, of course, shoot yourself in the foot by calling the wrong
command and telling
Scribit Robert L. Read dies 03/04/2007 hora 11:30:
> I'm pleased that you think Elephant is ready for a 1.0 release, but
> unfortunately Ian and I disagree. Ian and I have a number of small
> features that we think are needed to be "1.0 complete", not lease of
> which is an off-line garbage collec
On Tue, 2007-04-03 at 17:36 +0200, Pierre THIERRY wrote:
> Scribit Ian Eslick dies 03/04/2007 hora 09:28:
> > moving towards a 1.0 release in the near future. Therefore the
> > current CVS (0.6.1 beta) will shortly become 0.9rc1.
>
> Why use such a confusing numbering? There's no need for a 0.9
Scribit Ian Eslick dies 03/04/2007 hora 09:28:
> moving towards a 1.0 release in the near future. Therefore the
> current CVS (0.6.1 beta) will shortly become 0.9rc1.
Why use such a confusing numbering? There's no need for a 0.9 before
1.0, so you could as well have some "road-to-1.0" branch rec
