Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 19:41:12 -0400
Message-Id: <200005182341.TAA27790@envy.delorie.com>
From: DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <200005182247.AAA09079@father.ludd.luth.se> (message from Martin
	Str|mberg on Fri, 19 May 2000 00:47:41 +0200 (MET DST))
Subject: Re: Idea: Cutting edge DJGPP (alpha DJGPP?)
References:  <200005182247 DOT AAA09079 AT father DOT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
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


> Ok, I'd like to be in that position.

Thanks!

> Thanks for the cvs test directory!

:-)

> How will we handle the scenario that a lot of alpha functionality has
> been added to the cvs tree and then we need to fix a bug in v2.03?

Traditionally, we don't do that.  Given the stability of recent (ha)
DJGPP releases, It's safe for me to say "I'm not worried about that".
Worst case, we can branch off 2.03's tag for patch releases (cvs!).

> Will weekly/monthly/"wheneversomthing has changed" builds of djdev be
> produced?

No, anonymous CVS should be sufficient for now.  If it seems like a
good idea in the future, we'll worry about it then.  Developers should
use CVS for their purposes.