On 11/09/2015 1:54 am, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>
>
> On 9/10/2015 2:56 AM, Sebastian Huber wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 10/09/15 09:49, Pavel Pisa wrote:
>>> Hello Sebastian,
>>>
>>> On Thursday 10 of September 2015 08:52:37 Sebastian Huber wrote:
On 28/07/15 09:48, Chris Johns wrote:
> Eithe
On 9/10/2015 2:56 AM, Sebastian Huber wrote:
On 10/09/15 09:49, Pavel Pisa wrote:
Hello Sebastian,
On Thursday 10 of September 2015 08:52:37 Sebastian Huber wrote:
On 28/07/15 09:48, Chris Johns wrote:
Either scheme fits pretty well with RTEMS release cycle I think.
Even if we can get dow
On 10/09/15 09:49, Pavel Pisa wrote:
Hello Sebastian,
On Thursday 10 of September 2015 08:52:37 Sebastian Huber wrote:
On 28/07/15 09:48, Chris Johns wrote:
Either scheme fits pretty well with RTEMS release cycle I think.
Even if we can get down to one release per year, the numbers
won't gro
Hello Sebastian,
On Thursday 10 of September 2015 08:52:37 Sebastian Huber wrote:
> On 28/07/15 09:48, Chris Johns wrote:
> > Either scheme fits pretty well with RTEMS release cycle I think.
> > Even if we can get down to one release per year, the numbers
> > won't grow t
On 28/07/15 09:48, Chris Johns wrote:
Either scheme fits pretty well with RTEMS release cycle I think. Even
if we can get down to one release per year, the numbers won't grow
terribly fast.
>>>
>>>One release per year would be nice.
>>>
>>
>>We may need more flexibility.
>
>
On 28/07/2015 3:18 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote:
>
> - Chris Johns schrieb:
>> On 28/07/2015 6:01 am, Sebastian Huber wrote:
>>>
>>> - Gedare Bloom schrieb:
Extrapolating a bit, we would have:
4.11.0 release series (following old conventions)
5.0 next development version, no
- Chris Johns schrieb:
> On 28/07/2015 6:01 am, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> >
> > - Gedare Bloom schrieb:
> >> Extrapolating a bit, we would have:
> >> 4.11.0 release series (following old conventions)
> >> 5.0 next development version, no release
> >> 5.1 next release, with 5.2, 5.3, 5.4
On 28/07/2015 6:01 am, Sebastian Huber wrote:
>
> - Gedare Bloom schrieb:
>> Extrapolating a bit, we would have:
>> 4.11.0 release series (following old conventions)
>> 5.0 next development version, no release
>> 5.1 next release, with 5.2, 5.3, 5.4 as subsequent bugfix (maintenance)
>> rele
- Gedare Bloom schrieb:
> Extrapolating a bit, we would have:
> 4.11.0 release series (following old conventions)
> 5.0 next development version, no release
> 5.1 next release, with 5.2, 5.3, 5.4 as subsequent bugfix (maintenance)
> releases
> 6.0 next development version after 5.0
> 6.1 nex
Extrapolating a bit, we would have:
4.11.0 release series (following old conventions)
5.0 next development version, no release
5.1 next release, with 5.2, 5.3, 5.4 as subsequent bugfix (maintenance) releases
6.0 next development version after 5.0
6.1 next release after 5.1, with 6.2, 6.3, 6.4 as be
10 matches
Mail list logo