From:	<ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
Message-Id:	<200303182021.h2IKLlW16834@speedy.ludd.luth.se>
Subject:	Re: DJGPP 2.04 release? [Was: Re: nmalloc revisited]
In-Reply-To:	<10303181601.AA14391@clio.rice.edu> "from Charles Sandmann at Mar
	18, 2003 10:01:48 am"
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date:	Tue, 18 Mar 2003 21:21:47 +0100 (CET)
X-Mailer:	ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL78 (25)]
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-MailScanner:	Found to be clean
X-MIME-Autoconverted:	from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id h2IKM2m27231
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

According to Charles Sandmann:
> > Push into 2.05:
> > 
> > * DXE
> 
> If we push this out, we will need to package it as a separate program
> and REQUIRE it in the near future.  Or release 2.05 as soon as it's available,
> forget the testing.  I think this is a bad idea.

I don't see why that's so important. Sure, NLS binaries are bloated
until then (or no NLS support).

The choices are:
1. making a 2.04 soon without that (date X) and a 2.05 with that when
it's ready (date Y)

2. making a 2.04 with that when it's ready (date Z)

Why wouldn't Y == Z?

Anyway, Y will be rather close to Z.

What did we loose? Not much because we're using CVS anyway. But we
deprived the users the new features for Y-Z days. (Which will be
rather many days if past track record is anything to go by.)

Also consider this: you manage to get the new DXE ready. Just in time
for your departure, of course (that's the way it goes). You go
away. Problems arise with the new DXE? What will we do without you?
Is there a regular contributor here that does have a solid grip on the
new DXE besides you? We'll probably wait for your return. See the
problem?

(This is naturally not a personal attack or any complaints about any
DXE code. I'm just predicting a little.)

By the way, where in Europe will you visit? Near Luleå?


Right,

						MartinS

- Raw text -