On Tue, 2005-07-26 at 13:46 +0200, Stefan Bodewig wrote: > On Mon, 25 Jul 2005, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Thanks. I'm still in favour of putting the correct one from the dist > > back. > > big +1
Then I suggest that someone call a proper vote on doing this (this thread isn't really a vote thread). The initial email should list the exact tasks that are going to be done (see my recent email for a suggested list). Once the vote passes that someone should then go ahead and do it. > > > If anyone has problems using the original 1.0 where it used to work, > > I suggest a 1.0.1 release can then be worked on. > > +1 again. I don't understand this at all. People have built against a snapshot-of-unknown-date mistakenly labelled 1.0. Building a 1.0.1 based on the 1.0 code won't produce something that can replace what they built against. And building a 1.0.1 based on HEAD won't produce something that can replace what they built against. Regards, Simon --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
