Re: [UrJTAG-dev] time for release 0.11?

On Thu, Mar 01, 2018 at 08:42:49AM +, Jiri Kastner wrote: > for me release is when: > - it has tag in git > - is official archive listed in files (in case of sf.net) Such is done with '2017.10pre1'. Let the mailinglist know if to proceed with '2017.10'. Groeten Geert Stappers -- Leven en

Re: [UrJTAG-dev] time for release 0.11? web/

On Sun, Mar 04, 2018 at 10:37:30PM +0100, Geert Stappers wrote: > On Sun, Mar 04, 2018 at 12:31:09PM +0100, Kolja Waschk wrote: > > > > web/ > > > > - update, build and commit web content > > - find out how and where to put the new content online > > > > It has been almost 10 years since I

Re: [UrJTAG-dev] time for release 0.11?

Hi to github" reply, please Why not? I've made a number of posts regarding my opinion on this topic in the past, no need to repeat. Although from the posts here it seems desired by many to re-base the project somewhere else, there has not been anyone yet who proved really willing to

Re: [UrJTAG-dev] time for release 0.11?

- find out how and where to put the new content online > github? with move to github additional advantage should be This shouldn't have been misunderstood as another trigger for another "move to github" reply, please. I just meant who makes the release must find out how to put content

Re: [UrJTAG-dev] time for release 0.11? web/

On Sun, Mar 04, 2018 at 12:31:09PM +0100, Kolja Waschk wrote: > >If there are already some notes on doing a release, > >then please tell the mailinglist(archive) about it. > > Hi, > > work to do that already kept me from "simply releasing" a few times > because it takes a bit of time and

Re: [UrJTAG-dev] time for release 0.11?

On Sun, 04 Mar 2018 12:31:09 +0100, Kolja Waschk wrote: >> If there are already some notes on doing a release, >> then please tell the mailinglist(archive) about it. > > Hi, > > work to do that already kept me from "simply releasing" a few times > because it takes a bit of time and diligence:

Re: [UrJTAG-dev] time for release 0.11?

On Thu, Mar 01, 2018 at 10:28:17AM +0100, Kolja Waschk wrote: > >A fork by itself doesn't give you a formal release nor someone who > >cares for it. If you or someone else wants to jump in here at > >sourceforge to help it, you're welcome. I'd consider that more > >desirable. > > Oh, that was

Re: [UrJTAG-dev] time for release 0.11?

A fork by itself doesn't give you a formal release nor someone who cares for it. If you or someone else wants to jump in here at sourceforge to help it, you're welcome. I'd consider that more desirable. Oh, that was unclear from my side. I meant to say *help here at sourceforge* is more

Re: [UrJTAG-dev] time for release 0.11?

On Thu, 01 Mar 2018 08:42:49 +, Jiri Kastner wrote: > > i'm fine with moving to github/gitlab > ...bitbucket, whatever :) -- Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites,

Re: [UrJTAG-dev] time for release 0.11?

for me release is when: - it has tag in git - is official archive listed in files (in case of sf.net) i'm fine with moving to github/gitlab which related projects? warning in advance to maintainers of those projects will be enough :) On Thu, 01 Mar 2018 08:42:30 +0100, Kolja Waschk wrote: >

Re: [UrJTAG-dev] time for release 0.11?

Hi, > there plans to release 0.11 soon? What exactly are the (real) requirements to name it a "release" rather than use just a tagged clone/checkout from GIT/SVN? At some point in time, it will be the right time to fork. A fork by itself doesn't give you a formal release nor someone who

Re: [UrJTAG-dev] time for release 0.11?

On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 9:30 PM, Jiri Kastner wrote: > hi all, > i'm maintainer of urjtag in fedora, i see 500+ commits since 0.10, > are there plans to release 0.11 soon? > and some roadmap? At some point in time, it will be the right time to fork. -- Benjamin Henrion