Randy McMurchy wrote: > Bruce Dubbs wrote: >> Randy McMurchy wrote: >>> I'm leaning to 6.2.0. >> >> Seems reasonable to me. Do you want me to update the milestones that >> are available? >> >> I'm sorry this response is a bit late. I've been out of town. > > [crossposted to lfs-dev, replies should be sent to blfs-dev] > > I am out of town right now and will be for a week. As far as > the milestones go, let's go back to the old-fashioned method > of the group giving +1, -1 votes for the desired choice of: > > 1. Change all the references of BLFS-6.2 to BLFS-6.2.0 and > go forward.
+1 > 2. Keep what we have (BLFS-6.2), and when the follow-up is > released, call it BLFS-6.2u1 (the 'u' is for 'update', but > could be anything such as 'r' for 'release' or whatever is > best). > > Bruce, I can go either way. It doesn't matter, but I now lean > to #2, simply because it is easier. It's not clear to me why one way is easier than another. Setting either is merely an entity change. Setting either as a milestone is equally trivial. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
