michael chang wrote:
> On 9/23/05, Michael Schumacher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>michael chang wrote:

> The problem is that when the timeout dies, then should be a new 
> version; if there isn't one, it's kinda silly to have to re-install
> the same version to extend the timeout.

Reinstalling the same version wouldn't help, I'm talking about a hard
timeout there - created when the release tarball is made, for example,
and set to e.g. 60 or 90 days into the future.

> In that case, determining a timeout would be hard...

Not really. Running development releases is only useful up to a certain
time anyway - once current CVS has advanced considerably, there is not
much to be gained from using an outdated one. Also, this should
encourage people to keep the latest stable release installed - after
all, this one will not time out.

And finally, if anyone insists on using a development release longer
than the timeout lets him, he can alwyys use the source and disable the
timeout at compile time - and we can assume that if someone pops up with
an outdated release he know what he's doing.


The GIMP > http://www.gimp.org      | IRC: irc://irc.gimp.org/gimp
    Wiki > http://wiki.gimp.org     | .de: http://gimpforum.de
Plug-ins > http://registry.gimp.org |
Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to