El Lunes, 8 de Mayo de 2006 02:30, Archaic escribió:
> Yes. And due to Ken's convincing emails, 2.6 will be updated possibly
> right up to the day the book is released.
2.6.16.X, I suppose that you meant.
--
Manuel Canales Esparcia
Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org
LF
On Sun, May 07, 2006 at 12:38:02PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
> 1032 New users and groups
> I've had private conversations about this with other devs. My opinion
> is that this is not broken. Others have philosophical differences.
> Mark as wontfix.
Yes, and those difference have yet to be r
Archaic wrote:
On Sun, May 07, 2006 at 07:18:25PM -0400, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
Once you get the kernel in, unless there's another release before we're
ready to branch or one is released after we branch with security fixes,
I say we freeze kernel updates.
So basically you contradicted yoursel
On Sun, May 07, 2006 at 07:18:25PM -0400, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>
> Once you get the kernel in, unless there's another release before we're
> ready to branch or one is released after we branch with security fixes,
> I say we freeze kernel updates.
So basically you contradicted yourself. :) Aft
On Sun, May 07, 2006 at 12:24:56PM -0500, Randy McMurchy wrote:
>
> 1. Will the kernel be updated to the most recent available before the
> branch is cut?
Yes. And due to Ken's convincing emails, 2.6 will be updated possibly
right up to the day the book is released.
> 2. Will anything be done to
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
1032 New users and groups
I've had private conversations about this with other devs. My opinion
is that this is not broken. Others have philosophical differences.
Mark as wontfix.
This may be the right course, but I'll let Archaic make that call since
his name's on the t
Archaic wrote:
On Sun, May 07, 2006 at 01:02:01PM -0400, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
Given that, can we mark which ones we want/need to have done before we
branch for testing and then set a branch target date?
The two marked high must be done before branching. The rest are textual
(expect for the n
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
1656 Redundancy in Chapter 6 "Creating Directories"
Not a high priority, but seems to be very easy. I don't understand
why it hasn't been fixed by now. Fix it today.
That's my fault. I've just unassigend it from myself so that another
dev can pick it up.
Regards,
Ma
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Looking at http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/report/3 ,
> we have only 8 tickets left slated for 6.2, and a couple of them are
> easy ones. In fact, none of them are marked as 'defect' and I would say
> only about half should be done before we branch for testing - the ot
I'm resending because of a problem we had with mail. The message was in
the archives, but I never received a copy back. If you already received
this, please delete it.
-- Bruce
Original Message
Subject: Re: Getting 6.2 ready for testing
Date: Sun, 07 May 2006 12:38:02
Jeremy Huntwork wrote these words on 05/07/06 12:02 CST:
> Given that, can we mark which ones we want/need to have done before we
> branch for testing and then set a branch target date?
Knowing this is jumping the gun just a bit, but I've got a couple of
questions concerning the 6.2 testing bran
On Sun, May 07, 2006 at 01:02:01PM -0400, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>
> Given that, can we mark which ones we want/need to have done before we
> branch for testing and then set a branch target date?
The two marked high must be done before branching. The rest are textual
(expect for the now commonpl
12 matches
Mail list logo
