On Thu, 11 Jan 2001, John Levon wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Jan 2001, Allan Rae wrote:
>
> > Why will it be the last stable release for a long time?
> > 1.1.6 has taken far too long to get out the door and nearly everyone has
> > agreed we need to shorten our cycle again and get back to about 2-3 months
On 11 Jan 2001, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> > "Allan" == Allan Rae <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Allan> Just because we are calling the next release 1.2.0 shouldn't
> Allan> get you thinking in the Linux kernel way where major releases
> Allan> must be massively different to the previous
On Fri, 12 Jan 2001, Allan Rae wrote:
> Why will it be the last stable release for a long time?
> 1.1.6 has taken far too long to get out the door and nearly everyone has
> agreed we need to shorten our cycle again and get back to about 2-3 months
> between releases (if not shorter).
>
> Remembe
> "Allan" == Allan Rae <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Allan> Just because we are calling the next release 1.2.0 shouldn't
Allan> get you thinking in the Linux kernel way where major releases
Allan> must be massively different to the previous release (which is
Allan> half the reason the kernel re
On Thu, 11 Jan 2001, John Levon wrote:
> That's good, but it should be left open. The reason is that 1.1.6 will
> have this bug. This will be the last stable release for a long
> time.
Why will it be the last stable release for a long time?
1.1.6 has taken far too long to get out the door and ne
On Thu, 11 Jan 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Bug #123609, was updated on 2000-Nov-27 09:44
> Here is a current snapshot of the bug.
>
> Comment:
> I think we can just ignore it right now. Are we supposed
> to close it in this case? For now, I just set resolution to "wontfix".
That's good, but
