On Sunday 29 May 2005 20:59, Aidan Van Dyk wrote: > 1) Simply CVS head (as of some point in time) with certain features or > bug fixes "backed out" > > 2) In addition to CVS head, some important features and bug fixes.
I think it's simply #2. They are taking HEAD and maintaining a version where they are extraordinarily careful about what goes in. Similar to what "stable" was supposed to be. > In either case, since they are committed to the open source model, are > they willing to tell us what features/bug fixes in CVS are considered an > increased liability and risk, or what important features and bug fixes > they've applied on top of CVS? This could help those of us trying to > build stable, robust, asterisk-based solutions promote asterisk as a > stable, robust, low-risk platform. I fail to see why that's necessary. They're simply doing what anyone deciding not to run HEAD or "stable" should be doing. > Seems to be a bit of double-talk going on here... Howso? -A. BTW I am *not* trashing drumkilla (the stable maintainer) -- it's just that stable is feature-stable, not necessarily bugfree. _______________________________________________ Asterisk-Users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
