Hi, On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 20:07:36 +0100, Salvatore Insalaco wrote: > Regarding a Windows binary release for 2.1.1, I propose to not make it. > Making an official binary it's an implicit warranty that we support > the platform and it will work well there: with darcs stable 2.1 this > is not the case (even less than with 2.0, from my tests). > I know that most Windows issues are not that big, but I prefer to > concentrate on 2.2, when we'll say "YES, we support Windows".
Well, darcs 2.1 is an improvement over 2.0, and I think I would rather have people using darcs 2.1 than using darcs 2.0. We could do things like putting a big disclaimer on the binary, and making a point of hosting it somewhere other than on darcs.net. That said, I do plan on decentralising darcs authority as much as I can (the goal is to make the darcs team more robust and one day run itself), so I will trust whatever you think is the best decision. See the recent thread by Yitzchak Gale for reference. http://lists.osuosl.org/pipermail/darcs-users/2008-October/015065.html Thanks! -- Eric Kow <http://www.nltg.brighton.ac.uk/home/Eric.Kow> PGP Key ID: 08AC04F9
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
