delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi   search  
Mail Archives: djgpp-workers/2003/02/08/11:14:39

From: sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu (Charles Sandmann)
Message-Id: <10302081614.AA24085@clio.rice.edu>
Subject: Re: Remove a bit of cruft from readme.1st
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 10:14:22 -0600 (CST)
In-Reply-To: <3E450E6F.9060808@mif.vu.lt> from "Laurynas Biveinis" at Feb 08, 2003 03:04:31 PM
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

> 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.

I would prefer to keep them - they are 6 lines at the bottom of the
document.  They would be essential information for someone needing
to upgrade.  In addition, there still are some V1.x ported programs
which have never been ported to V2.x

- Raw text -


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