On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 18:20:00 +0100
Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
> But if we look on tag of screen-4.0.3 or its release:
> screen-4.0.2.tar.gz27-Jan-2004 05:46 821K
> screen-4.0.2.tar.gz.sig27-Jan-2004 05:47 65
> screen-4.0.3.tar.gz07-Aug-2008 06:30 821K
> screen-4.0.3.ta
Dne neděle 08 Listopad 2009 17:57:10 Jeroen Roovers napsal(a):
> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 18:24:10 +0100
>
> Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
> > * Masking beta...
> > This masks are good if the software release is KNOWN to break
> > previous behaviour or degrade user experience. Otherwise the software
> > should
On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 18:24:10 +0100
Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
> * Masking beta...
> This masks are good if the software release is KNOWN to break
> previous behaviour or degrade user experience. Otherwise the software
> should not be masked (its TESTING for purpose, not stable).
> Also the maintainer sh
В Сбт, 07/11/2009 в 18:24 +0100, Tomáš Chvátal пишет:
> * Masking beta...
> This masks are good if the software release is KNOWN to break previous
> behaviour or degrade user experience. Otherwise the software should not be
> masked (its TESTING for purpose, not stable).
God no! If we'll start t
Hi all,
I'm not QA, but I'll go ahead and add my comments to this also.
On Sat, Nov 07, 2009 at 06:24:10PM +0100, Tom Chv??tal wrote:
> * Masking beta...
> This masks are good if the software release is KNOWN to break previous
> behaviour or degrade user experience. Otherwise the software sh
Hi,
since I aint got blag i will polute our lovely mailing list (sorry if i hit
some in-middle flame :P).
Currently i've been reviewing the package.mask file (since we have to keep with
it for a while [no package.mask folder near us :)] we have to trim it down and
keep sane).
NOTE: The p.mask
