Date:	Thu, 1 Nov 2001 15:58:09 +0200 (IST)
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender:	eliz AT is
To:	Charles Sandmann <sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu>
cc:	DJGPP developers <djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com>
Subject:	Re: Win2K/XP status - next steps?
In-Reply-To:	<10111010650.AA14664@clio.rice.edu>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1011101155203.18482K-100000@is>
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

On Thu, 1 Nov 2001, Charles Sandmann wrote:

> So it's time to talk about what we might want to do for release(s).
> 
> If we do a release based on 2.03 (refresh or 2.04) it's low risk,
> minor changes (to the library) but requires rebuilds of many of 
> packages to be useful.

Don't forget that such an updated 2.03 is extremely useful for people 
(most of whom are on this list) who produce binary packages: that makes 
sure we upload binaries which won't break on W2K and XP.

As for rebuilding of major packages that aren't expected to get upgrades 
soon, it should be easy enough, I think.

> Given the number of people who are using part of Andrew's work, and the
> low number of complaints, I think we have effectively done a stealth
> beta release of the cvs library and tools based on it.

I'm not sure.  How many people used it in serious development work, of 
the kind people on this list use to do?  How many ports were built using 
tools compiled with the CVS library?

There's a number of new features in v2.04 (such as symlinks) whose impact 
might need serious testing, and I'm not sure people who downloaded from 
the Web page did any such testing.

So I don't think we can release 2.04 without beta phase, and that 
normally takes a few months.  I say let's release patched 2.03 in the 
meantime.

- Raw text -