On Sun, 1 Jul 2001, Cliff Woolley wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Jul 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > There were a lot of changes since that tag was laid. I wouldn't have a
> > problem just retagging that file if we had done everything in a few hours,
> > and nothing else had been committed. Since it took a few days, I do not
> > believe this is a good idea. We are better off just tagging as 2.0.20,
> > IMNSHO.
>
> Yes, definitely go to 2.0.20. Besides the other changes that have gone in
> since .19, .19 was announced to current-testers when it was rolled... no
> sense adding to the confusion by having two .19's. Numbers are cheap.
> =-)
I'm not rolling until the current problem with the intraprocess locks is
fixed. I'll try to get to it soon-ish. If somebody wants to beat me to
it, feel free.
Ryan
_____________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Covalent Technologies [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
