On Nov 14, 2010, at 20:08, "Ralph Goers" wrote:
>
> On Nov 14, 2010, at 7:43 PM, sebb wrote:
>
>> On 15 November 2010 02:08, Ralph Goers wrote:
>>>
>>> On Nov 14, 2010, at 5:51 PM, sebb wrote:
>>>
On 15 November 2010 01:38, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
> On Nov 14, 2010, at 5:34 PM, s
On 15 November 2010 04:07, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
> On Nov 14, 2010, at 7:43 PM, sebb wrote:
>
>> On 15 November 2010 02:08, Ralph Goers wrote:
>>>
>>> On Nov 14, 2010, at 5:51 PM, sebb wrote:
>>>
On 15 November 2010 01:38, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
> On Nov 14, 2010, at 5:34 PM, sebb wrot
On Nov 14, 2010, at 7:43 PM, sebb wrote:
> On 15 November 2010 02:08, Ralph Goers wrote:
>>
>> On Nov 14, 2010, at 5:51 PM, sebb wrote:
>>
>>> On 15 November 2010 01:38, Ralph Goers wrote:
On Nov 14, 2010, at 5:34 PM, sebb wrote:
>
>
> IMO it's important to ensu
On 15 November 2010 02:08, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
> On Nov 14, 2010, at 5:51 PM, sebb wrote:
>
>> On 15 November 2010 01:38, Ralph Goers wrote:
>>>
>>> On Nov 14, 2010, at 5:34 PM, sebb wrote:
>>>
IMO it's important to ensure that the package change really is necessary.
>>>
>>>
On Nov 14, 2010, at 5:51 PM, sebb wrote:
> On 15 November 2010 01:38, Ralph Goers wrote:
>>
>> On Nov 14, 2010, at 5:34 PM, sebb wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> IMO it's important to ensure that the package change really is necessary.
>>>
>>
>> Somehow I thought that was accomplished by the last rel
On 15 November 2010 01:38, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
> On Nov 14, 2010, at 5:34 PM, sebb wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> IMO it's important to ensure that the package change really is necessary.
>>
>
> Somehow I thought that was accomplished by the last release candidate failing
> to get the required votes due to t
On Nov 14, 2010, at 5:34 PM, sebb wrote:
>
>
> IMO it's important to ensure that the package change really is necessary.
>
Somehow I thought that was accomplished by the last release candidate failing
to get the required votes due to the package name not being changed. If the
recommendatio
On 15 November 2010 01:23, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
> On Nov 14, 2010, at 3:43 AM, sebb wrote:
>
>> On 14 November 2010 11:17, sebb wrote:
>>> The change of VFS package name has broken lots of Gump builds - which
>>> is to be expected.
>>>
>>> Looking at how this has been solved for other projects, o
On Nov 14, 2010, at 3:43 AM, sebb wrote:
> On 14 November 2010 11:17, sebb wrote:
>> The change of VFS package name has broken lots of Gump builds - which
>> is to be expected.
>>
>> Looking at how this has been solved for other projects, one way to
>> solve this is to create a branch for the V
On 14 November 2010 11:17, sebb wrote:
> The change of VFS package name has broken lots of Gump builds - which
> is to be expected.
>
> Looking at how this has been solved for other projects, one way to
> solve this is to create a branch for the VFS 1.x code and use that for
> the current VFS.
> T
The change of VFS package name has broken lots of Gump builds - which
is to be expected.
Looking at how this has been solved for other projects, one way to
solve this is to create a branch for the VFS 1.x code and use that for
the current VFS.
Then we create a build for VFS 2.
Gump does warn us t
11 matches
Mail list logo