On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 10:31:39 -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote: >On Wed, Apr 09, 2008 at 06:09:46AM -0700, Brian Dessent wrote: >>Corinna Vinschen wrote: >>>My favorite would be release-2. It has nothing to do with the DLL >> >>Sounds fine to me as well. > >It's ok.
Works for me. One question: the old plan was, as outlined by Brian, that we would eventually have: release_legacy <<-- renamed from existing 'release' directory release <<-- new 1.7 stuff, once it is "gold". (and somewhere we would have a temp release-1.7/-2008/whatever thing, which would get renamed to 'release') Is the new plan: release <<-- stays exactly as is, forever and ever. (OK, maybe some pkg updates...) release-2 <<-- "temp" with custom setup.exe during development, but eventually becomes "actual" when (a) we decide that 1.7 and associated pkgs are ready to go (b) and we release a "new" setup.exe with the special "are you Win9x"-->release (NOT release_legacy), else -->release-2 That is, no directory renaming at all (which would make the mirrors happy) -- we "activate" by releasing a new setup? ? -- Chuck
