From:	sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu (Charles Sandmann)
Message-Id:	<10109121607.AA12230@clio.rice.edu>
Subject:	Re: WinME testing - patches or release?
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date:	Wed, 12 Sep 2001 11:07:51 -0500 (CDT)
In-Reply-To:	<200109121545.LAA00319@envy.delorie.com> from "DJ Delorie" at Sep 12, 2001 11:45:39 AM
X-Mailer:	ELM [version 2.5 PL2]
Mime-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

> > I'm already testing the stuff from http://clio.rice.edu/djgpp/win2k/main.htm
> > in trying to get bleadperl running on Win2k. Is there more than the files
> > available from above site?
> 
> Oh, right, forgot about that.  I even had a link there from my site!

Here's a question that Eli and I discussed a bit off-list: V2.03 update vs
V2.04 cvs?

Andrew's efforts are more than just testing Win2K patches - in effect we are
testing the entire 2.04 CVS tree.  If these tests are OK, does it make sense
to release a 2.04 sooner than later on this basis?

I've also collected what I believe are the essential updates to 2.03 for
a "refresh".  This is lower risk than the 2.04 cvs path, but would be
stubstantial effort for an "old" release.  At the bare minimum we would 
refresh djdev203 and djlsr203 (22 months after release).  This is probably
a few hours work.

Eli would like to see a refresh instead of an update kit since there seems
to be enough problems just unzipping distributions, much less running a
bat file afterwards to fix things.  I considered both for the savvy who
have more brains than bandwidth.  In both cases we were trying to make
sure everything was fixed before proceeding.  BTW, I haven't seen anything
recently that looks like a W2K only bug - am I missing any?

Thoughts?

- Raw text -