Hi Bernd, Pat, Jeremy, >> Pat, Jeremy: Please FIRST update history txt BEFORE we make >> a sourceforge file release of kernel 2038. Thank you :-).
I just uploaded updated history.txt / readme.txt / contrib.txt as subversion revision SVN r1412 for Pat :-). NOTE: Please ONLY updated those 3 when making a zip, otherwise you would make a zip of "kernel almost 2039". This history.txt update describes ONLY the changes until 2038, not the newer changes, to make it easier to use my updated history.txt for a kernel 2038 zip :-) http://freedos.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/freedos/kernel/trunk/docs/?sortby=date#dirlist http://freedos.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/freedos?view=rev&sortby=date&revision=1412 In case you want to have a quick look without using a SVN tool: http://freedos.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/freedos/kernel/trunk/docs/history.txt http://freedos.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/freedos/kernel/trunk/docs/readme.txt http://freedos.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/freedos/kernel/trunk/docs/contrib.txt > As ideal as this seems, I'm glad there's a 2038 now. There was a 2038 snapshot before, on http://rugxulo.googlepages.com/ What I mean is: When we put a fresh 2038 kernel zip file on http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=5109 it must include documentation / changelog about 2038 :-). > Feel free to make a history.txt for 2039, as you seem to mention This documentation was only about 2038 and you must have a proper changelog if you want users to understand what they download and what they can expect in a new version. > there's some patches already again anyway (which would mean a > 2039 isn't too far away). There are dozens of patches between each two versions and I am sure that Bart will update history.txt after each "block" of patches to document changes, for example explaining the details on how he removed fnodes and in which C/H/ASM files. > As for SYS, I think I'll keep both versions (stable and unstable) > due to different feature sets. The unstable-branch SYS is more like a boot manager ;-) > As for FreeCOM, guess we're stuck with the old one. Should we offer > 4DOS as an option during installation time of any distribution? I would put 0.82pl3 as default but the install scripts as triggered by FDPKG / installer in FreeCOM 0.84 / 4DOS zip packages can be interactive and ask the user whether he wants to make 4DOS / 0.84 the SHELL line if he prefers that way :-). Eric PS: Other pending things are "add force LBA or CHS" option to SYS for FAT32 configuration, get explanation of SVN r1396 on sft.txt (offsets 0b, 1b-1e, sft_status _cuclust _ifsptr...), check UDF-CDEX possibilities, check which features beyond the COUNTRY SYS support from unstable are interesting for porting, http://apps.sourceforge.net/mediawiki/freedos/index.php?title=Unstable_Kernel_Branch ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Register Now for Creativity and Technology (CaT), June 3rd, NYC. CaT is a gathering of tech-side developers & brand creativity professionals. Meet the minds behind Google Creative Lab, Visual Complexity, Processing, & iPhoneDevCamp as they present alongside digital heavyweights like Barbarian Group, R/GA, & Big Spaceship. http://p.sf.net/sfu/creativitycat-com _______________________________________________ Freedos-kernel mailing list Freedos-kernel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-kernel
