Mikhail Ramendik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Aaron Stone wrote: > >> Good enough for me. I think we should go for it. Paul, did you have an >> objection? I'm also not terribly sure if we should build towards 2.0.1 >> while Ilja is out of town, although I'd like to. Perhaps a bugtracker >> thread with all of the patches we want in 2.0.1 so that we can test >> them for a while? > > Question: will 2.0.1 be based on current 2.0 code with patches, but > without regard for CVS development?
That's correct: 2.0.1 is 2.0.0 + 0.0.1 patches ;-) They should be as small as possible, not make any deep changes, and need to be absolutely reliable. [snip] > I can implement that for 2.0.1 today. But this means a patch against the > 2.0 _ic_fetch() , not CVS HEAD - so I need to make sure this is useful > for 2.0.1. Nope, you should not bring the HEAD version of _ic_fetch into 2.0 patches. Aaron --
