Matthieu Fertré wrote:
Please, leave major.minor.patch numbering. Ubuntu's way is confusing,
>
> Hum, currently we do not use major.minor.patch numbering. We use
> 0.major.minor ...
I'd say, no, we do have something like:
major.middle.minor
The middle number makes sense (in the
RCL a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 11:09 AM, Kurosu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> RCL a écrit :
>>
>>> Please, leave major.minor.patch numbering. Ubuntu's way is confusing,
>>>
Hum, currently we do not use major.minor.patch numbering. We use
0.major.minor
Hi,
On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 11:09 AM, Kurosu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> RCL a écrit :
> > Please, leave major.minor.patch numbering. Ubuntu's way is confusing,
> and
> > you get version numbers misleadingly bumped up, even if no major changes
> > happened (e.g. people could think that 9.
Hi,
RCL a écrit :
> Please, leave major.minor.patch numbering. Ubuntu's way is confusing, and
> you get version numbers misleadingly bumped up, even if no major changes
> happened (e.g. people could think that 9.01 is significantly better than
> 8.12, though they may only differ by minor patches).
Hi,
Eddy Petrișor a écrit :
[...]
> PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, keep the versions in order!
>
>> What we thought was a good solution, is to break from the
>> major.minor.patch scheme and select the Ubuntu way (just an example),
>> referring to the release date.
>
> The major.minor.patch scheme is re
Hi
(sorry for the webmail screwing with non-ISO-8859-1 characters)
Quoting Eddy Petrișor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Is it possible to cross-build for windows? I know in Debian there is
> support to build w32 binaries, but I don't know how far the support extends.
There's a whole page about this:
htt
RCL wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Are there any critical show-stopper bugs in the current version?
I see these as important enough to block the final release:
https://gna.org/bugs/index.php?11180
https://gna.org/bugs/index.php?10719
https://gna.org/bugs/index.php?10668
https://gna.org/bugs/index.php?10227
>
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 11:33 PM, Kurosu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Several persons, both through mail and IRC, expressed a concern. This
> mail tries to address it.
>
> Kurosu a écrit :
> > 2) Switch to a less static release cycle, and rather use a 3 months
> > schedule without version number (
Kurosu wrote:
> Several persons, both through mail and IRC, expressed a concern. This
> mail tries to address it.
>
> Kurosu a écrit :
>> 2) Switch to a less static release cycle, and rather use a 3 months
>> schedule without version number (not sure about tagging some versions
>> for the official
Several persons, both through mail and IRC, expressed a concern. This
mail tries to address it.
Kurosu a écrit :
> 2) Switch to a less static release cycle, and rather use a 3 months
> schedule without version number (not sure about tagging some versions
> for the official distribution packages)
Hi,
First, sorry for being away since 2 months ;)
I'm happy we talk about this release. I can take a part of the work to release
this version.
As far as I know, I see from my humble point of view the following bug to
close :
- bug #10709 : submachine gun missiles fly through a ceiling
- bug #1
Hi!
Are there any critical show-stopper bugs in the current version?
One of senior developers should probably take a role of release engineer, so
questions like the above one could be directly addressed to him/her :)
I personally can build a binary package for FreeBSD (and nudge a
port-maintaine
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi there, I subscribe yesterday, so i'm new here :)
Le 28 févr. 08 à 00:31, Kurosu a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> after a discussion with gentildemon and yekcim (sorry it isn't public,
> but it's hard to note down things when you are face to face during a
> lun
13 matches
Mail list logo
