delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi   search  
Mail Archives: djgpp-workers/2003/02/08/08:04:13

Message-ID: <3E450E6F.9060808@mif.vu.lt>
Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2003 15:04:31 +0100
From: Laurynas Biveinis <laurynas DOT biveinis AT mif DOT vu DOT lt>
Organization: VU MIF
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20021130
X-Accept-Language: lt, en, en-us
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: Remove a bit of cruft from readme.1st
References: <3E44F9B6 DOT 3090901 AT mif DOT vu DOT lt> <7458-Sat08Feb2003142320+0200-eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
In-Reply-To: <7458-Sat08Feb2003142320+0200-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Feb 2003 13:01:25.0945 (UTC) FILETIME=[30113290:01C2CF72]
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>>Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2003 13:36:06 +0100
>>From: Laurynas Biveinis <laurynas DOT biveinis AT mif DOT vu DOT lt>
>>
>>IMHO information about v1.x should not belong to readme.1st nowadays.
> 
> 
> Why?  Will having those 6 lines do any harm?  Are we sure no one will
> ever upgrade from v1.x anymore?

IMHO readme.1st should be brief and have essential information for
users. Upgrading from v1 surely is not ``essential information'' for
99.9% of users currently?

Having said that, I don't care much about those 6 lines either way.

--
Laurynas


- Raw text -


  webmaster     delorie software   privacy  
  Copyright 2019   by DJ Delorie     Updated Jul 2019