Thanks Anton, Mohan
On Wed, 2011-09-14 at 22:00 +0400, Anton Pak wrote: > Yes, end of September / beginning of October. > I am going to issue -2weeks notice around Sep 15. > > Anton Pak > > On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 21:33:59 +0400, [email protected] <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Anton, > > > > Are you planning for the release in October? Let's know when you want to > > freeze the checkins on the release branch/trunk. > > > > Thanks > > Mohan > > > > > > On Tue, 2011-08-02 at 14:34 +0400, Anton Pak wrote: > >> If we follow order when even release numbers are stable then my point is > >> to have 3.0 as 2.17 stabilization. > >> Or we never get away of 2.x. > >> > >> Yes, we shall maintain x86. I meant only binary builds of OpenHPI for > >> Windows. > >> > >> Anton Pak > >> > >> On Mon, 01 Aug 2011 19:00:16 +0400, [email protected] <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > Hi Anton, > >> > > >> > Since we had many bug fixes but we did not have major new features, do > >> > we want to call this 2.18? > >> > > >> > I do not know how the stats work. We use svn export most of the time > >> in > >> > addition to the tarball downloads. Almost all of our downloads are for > >> > Linux. In addition many customers are using the packages shipped on > >> the > >> > distros. That's one of the reason we get many queries on the old > >> > releases in the mailing list as well as personal mails. x86 does lack > >> > popularity compared to x86_64. But it is still used by many. I think > >> we > >> > need to maintain it. > >> > > >> > my $0.02 > >> > > >> > Thanks > >> > Mohan > >> > > >> > On Mon, 2011-08-01 at 15:44 +0400, Anton Pak wrote: > >> >> Hello! > >> >> > >> >> Suggest planning next stable OpenHPI release (3.0) to the end of > >> >> September > >> >> / beginning of October. > >> >> Correct me if I am wrong - there have been no big bugfixes and new > >> >> features since 2.17 so > >> >> stabilization makes sense. > >> >> What say? > >> >> > >> >> Stats for 2.17 showed 96 downloads since June: > >> >> - 38 for source tarball > >> >> - 42 for Windows (AMD-64, gcc4) build > >> >> - 12 for Windows (x86, gcc4) build > >> >> - 4 for Windows (x86, gcc3) build > >> >> Seems x86 builds lack popularity. We may exclude them from the > >> >> distribution. > >> >> > >> >> Bryan, do you still have plans for getting documentation out of the > >> >> source > >> >> tarball? > >> >> > >> >> Anton Pak > >> >> > >> >> > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >> >> Got Input? Slashdot Needs You. > >> >> Take our quick survey online. Come on, we don't ask for help often. > >> >> Plus, you'll get a chance to win $100 to spend on ThinkGeek. > >> >> http://p.sf.net/sfu/slashdot-survey > >> >> _______________________________________________ > >> >> Openhpi-devel mailing list > >> >> [email protected] > >> >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openhpi-devel > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >> > Got Input? Slashdot Needs You. > >> > Take our quick survey online. Come on, we don't ask for help often. > >> > Plus, you'll get a chance to win $100 to spend on ThinkGeek. > >> > http://p.sf.net/sfu/slashdot-survey > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > Openhpi-devel mailing list > >> > [email protected] > >> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openhpi-devel > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Doing More with Less: The Next Generation Virtual Desktop What are the key obstacles that have prevented many mid-market businesses from deploying virtual desktops? How do next-generation virtual desktops provide companies an easier-to-deploy, easier-to-manage and more affordable virtual desktop model.http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51426474/ _______________________________________________ Openhpi-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openhpi-devel
