Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 12:28:43 -0400
Message-Id: <200005101628.MAA31643@envy.delorie.com>
From: DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <39197AB0.48169971@softhome.net> (message from Laurynas Biveinis
	on Wed, 10 May 2000 18:05:20 +0300)
Subject: Re: Idea: Cutting edge DJGPP (alpha DJGPP?)
References: <200005101432 DOT QAA05227 AT lws256 DOT lu DOT erisoft DOT se> <200005101455 DOT KAA30957 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <39197AB0 DOT 48169971 AT softhome DOT net>
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
Precedence: bulk


> > Why?  Just check out the CVS version.  Updating to the absolute latest
> > after that is real fast, too, just a "cvs update" away.
> 
> I think he is talking about features-not-in-CVS, like symlinks, uname,
> chroot, regparm, indvidual environment files etc etc...

Now that 2.03 has shipped, I see no reason not to start making these
features-in-CVS.  If we can come to some consensus about who should be
allowed to check things in (history, reliability, quality, etc), I'm
willing to add some more people to that list to spread the work
around.  I'm sure Eli is tired of being "it" from the 2.03 work :-)