On Thu, 2009-07-02 at 21:51 -0400, BandiPat wrote:
> But again, why not put a freeze on adding things, just fix the bugs so
> you can release a stable version number for those squeamish about using svn?
Fine with me. I think GRUB is in a pretty good state now for a release.
Perhaps I would sti
Pavel Roskin wrote:
On Thu, 2009-07-02 at 22:20 +0200, Christian Franke wrote:
Many "GNU GRUB version 1.96" used in production are likely builds from
more recent SVN snapshots. It would (IMO) be useful to have some info
about the actual installed version.
I can tell from my experience with o
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 10:39 PM, Pavel Roskin wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-07-02 at 22:20 +0200, Christian Franke wrote:
>> Many "GNU GRUB version 1.96" used in production are likely builds from
>> more recent SVN snapshots. It would (IMO) be useful to have some info
>> about the actual installed version
On Thu, 2009-07-02 at 22:20 +0200, Christian Franke wrote:
> Many "GNU GRUB version 1.96" used in production are likely builds from
> more recent SVN snapshots. It would (IMO) be useful to have some info
> about the actual installed version.
I can tell from my experience with other projects tha
Many "GNU GRUB version 1.96" used in production are likely builds from
more recent SVN snapshots. It would (IMO) be useful to have some info
about the actual installed version.
This patch adds a script to generate some version info from ChangeLog
and (if available) from SVN.
The version syn
