michael chang wrote: > On 9/23/05, Michael Schumacher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>michael chang wrote:
> The problem is that when the timeout dies, then should be a new > version; if there isn't one, it's kinda silly to have to re-install > the same version to extend the timeout. Reinstalling the same version wouldn't help, I'm talking about a hard timeout there - created when the release tarball is made, for example, and set to e.g. 60 or 90 days into the future. > In that case, determining a timeout would be hard... Not really. Running development releases is only useful up to a certain time anyway - once current CVS has advanced considerably, there is not much to be gained from using an outdated one. Also, this should encourage people to keep the latest stable release installed - after all, this one will not time out. And finally, if anyone insists on using a development release longer than the timeout lets him, he can alwyys use the source and disable the timeout at compile time - and we can assume that if someone pops up with an outdated release he know what he's doing. Michael -- The GIMP > http://www.gimp.org | IRC: irc://irc.gimp.org/gimp Wiki > http://wiki.gimp.org | .de: http://gimpforum.de Plug-ins > http://registry.gimp.org | _______________________________________________ Gimp-developer mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
