On Monday 05 May 2008 05:13:16 Dan Kegel wrote:
I just wrote up an idea related to release management for post-1.0
wine releases. It's online at
http://wiki.winehq.org/TimeBasedReleases
Essentially, the idea is to release in March and September,
in time for the April and October releases
Dan Kegel wrote:
I just wrote up an idea related to release management for post-1.0
wine releases. It's online at
http://wiki.winehq.org/TimeBasedReleases
Essentially, the idea is to release in March and September,
in time for the April and October releases of Ubuntu.
You have my 120%
On Mon, May 05, 2008 at 04:12:52AM -0700, Scott Ritchie wrote:
Dan Kegel wrote:
I just wrote up an idea related to release management for post-1.0
wine releases. It's online at
http://wiki.winehq.org/TimeBasedReleases
Essentially, the idea is to release in March and September,
in
Scott Ritchie [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The alternative, truthfully, is choosing between shipping Ubuntu with a
2+months out of date Wine version or an untested one. Either option sucks.
I don't see how we can possibly have a tested release ready every time
some distro decides to ship. On the
On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 5:12 AM, Alexandre Julliard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't see how we can possibly have a tested release ready every time
some distro decides to ship.
That wasn't the proposal. The proposal was to ship every 6 months, and
to pick a release date that made some sense
Alexandre Julliard wrote:
Scott Ritchie [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The alternative, truthfully, is choosing between shipping Ubuntu with a
2+months out of date Wine version or an untested one. Either option sucks.
I don't see how we can possibly have a tested release ready every time
some
On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 6:54 AM, Alexandre Julliard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's the distro that changed the mmap config, not the kernel. I'm not
sure I understand their reasoning, apparently this was an attempt to
work around the vulnerability without fixing the kernel.
Oh, right. I think
Dan Kegel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That wasn't the distro; that was an upstream kernel vulnerability fix
announced in February,
http://kerneltrap.org/Linux/Patching_CVE-2008-0600_Local_Root_Exploit
It's the distro that changed the mmap config, not the kernel. I'm not
sure I understand their
2008/5/5 Kai Blin [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Monday 05 May 2008 05:13:16 Dan Kegel wrote:
I just wrote up an idea related to release management for post-1.0
wine releases. It's online at
http://wiki.winehq.org/TimeBasedReleases
Essentially, the idea is to release in March and September,
I think that a missing factor in making this decision is the shape of
an automatic test suite. Its been mentioned a dozen times and has the
potential to tip the scales in favor of the time-based releases
(making QA easier - shorter freezes). In the event that we are able
to maintain QA (by test
Hello Zachary,
2008/5/5 Zachary Goldberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I think that a missing factor in making this decision is the shape of
an automatic test suite. Its been mentioned a dozen times and has the
potential to tip the scales in favor of the time-based releases
(making QA easier -
I just wrote up an idea related to release management for post-1.0
wine releases. It's online at
http://wiki.winehq.org/TimeBasedReleases
Essentially, the idea is to release in March and September,
in time for the April and October releases of Ubuntu.
For instance, following this strategy, we
On Sun, May 4, 2008 at 10:13 PM, Dan Kegel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just wrote up an idea related to release management for post-1.0
wine releases. It's online at
http://wiki.winehq.org/TimeBasedReleases
Essentially, the idea is to release in March and September,
in time for the April
On Sun, May 4, 2008 at 11:13 PM, Dan Kegel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I look forward to discussing this idea... perhaps we shouldn't
bother to until after 1.0 is released, but I wanted to get it out
early so the discussion can begin in time for us to move on it
if we want to.
I think having
14 matches
Mail list logo
