On Sat, May 28, 2005 at 10:03:17AM -1000, Warren Togami wrote: > A good argument against this would be if it takes far too much work.
With 3.0, there are 3 mass-check runs (~1 week each to get participation and such), then the score generation takes ~1 day total. So in short, it's roughly a month with testing to get new scores done. In theory, with 3.1 that'll be closer to 10-14 days. > It is true that I don't know how much work it would entail. If that is the > case, then I would propose scheduling a 3.0.5 with more backported fixes > and rescoring for a few months after 3.1.0. That would give me time to > learn how things work here so I can better contribute time and > especially testing resources. I think that once 3.1 comes out, it'll be much easier to keep a stable older version going than with 3.0, due to the availability of sa-update. Of course, I don't think we have enough time to actually do a lot with that for a while. :( -- Randomly Generated Tagline: "I try to avoid doing the Linux vs. Microsoft thing . . . it's not as if I would be unbiased anyway. Asking me about Linux is like asking the Pope about the existence of God." - Linus Torvalds
pgpCs6mttVkxR.pgp
Description: PGP signature
