On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 12:21:55PM +1100, James Cameron wrote: > On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 12:27:41PM +0100, Martin Langhoff wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 11:23 AM, James Cameron <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 09:38:20AM +0100, Martin Langhoff wrote: > > >> 2 - bugs on released versions -- filed by volunteer testers _and by > > >> our end users_ > > >> > > >> We can't close the door on #2. Please do add the old releases back to > > >> the versions to report bugs against. > > > > > > No, sorry. ?The old releases were not present in full, only some of them > > > were, and there are far too many for this to be a realistic option. > > > > Hmmm. The list you added below does not correlate much with releases. > > I agree with removing things that are not formal releases, but 8.2 > > (756?) and 8.2.1 (802) _must_ be there. Otherwise it is impossible to > > do maintenance of stable releases. > > Okay, you've convinced me from the point of view of maintenance, which I > didn't think was happening ... I will (or will approve) adding back the > build numbers for 8.2 and 8.2.1 as release names in the trac version > table.
This has been completed. > > > I've added back a 1.0 Software version. > > > > We never had a "1.0 Software". We've had things like Update.1, .2 > > (756?) and 8.2.1 (802). > > I'll remove it at the same time as the major build numbers are > reinstated. And this. > I'd like to know which build numbers are actually being used in > deployments, community testing, or maintenance. Thanks to John for the list. -- James Cameron http://quozl.linux.org.au/ _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
