Yes 2.x went on for too long but I was counting 2.2.x as the equivalent of
3.x due to the change in the release schedule (mainly just a change in the
numberring).
The thing that worries me is the bad reputation that comes from releasing
not quite ready releases.
Basically the real way to run Fre
On 13-Dec-99 Matthew Thyer wrote:
> Consider the 2.2 stream that went through many more releases (counting
> 2.2.1 -> 2.2.8). Using that yardstick you'd expect 4.0 to stay in
> development until 3.7 is released. I know 7 releases of the 2.2 stream
> was considerred a few too many but surely we
On Mon, 13 Dec 1999, Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote:
> Tell a computer to WIN and ...
>... You lose
Actually, I always thought there was something subliminal about typing
"WIN". Funny how they didn't choose "WIND". It's like, you're typing
"WIN", so you in
On 13-Dec-99 Sheldon Hearn wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 14 Dec 1999 00:34:28 +1030, Matthew Thyer wrote:
>
>> What is the big rush to 4.0-RELEASE ?
>
> We are relying on public awareness of the fact that .0 releases (in just
> about any project) are _going_ to have issues. We need the 4 branch out
>
On Tue, 14 Dec 1999 00:34:28 +1030, Matthew Thyer wrote:
> What is the big rush to 4.0-RELEASE ?
We are relying on public awareness of the fact that .0 releases (in just
about any project) are _going_ to have issues. We need the 4 branch out
out there in the hands of the masses.
Ciao,
Sheldo
