Latest stable build in Ship.2
Two different sources of information seem to be conflicting. According to the download page for ship.2, 653 is the latest signed stable, but according to OS images http://wiki.laptop.org/go/OS_images the latest image is 650. Since many issues that were in 650 have been fixed in 653, and 653 seems to run w/o issues, why the two different sources? Since 653 is signed and (iirc) fixed WPA issues, should we not tell users to update to 653 to fix their issues? -ffm ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Latest stable build in Ship.2
On Dec 26, 2007 12:27 PM, ffm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: According to the download page for ship.2, 653 is the latest signed stable, but according to OS images the latest image is 650. Since many issues that were in 650 have been fixed in 653, and 653 seems to run w/o issues, why the two different sources? Since 653 is signed and (iirc) fixed WPA issues, should we not tell users to update to 653 to fix their issues? 653 was a stop-gap release and has been tested only as a clean install. Upgrading from 650 to 653 has not been tested, and so using olpc-update to get from 650 to 653 is not (yet?) recommended. That is the reason for the discrepancy: we can't yet recommend 653 as an update. Users who need WPA should do a clean install of 653, which will remove any content they had created in the Journal. At the moment, Update.1 will be the first recommended/tested *update* (as opposed to clean install), although it is possible we will release something-like-653 which we could feel comfortable recommending as an update. --scott -- ( http://cscott.net/ ) ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Latest stable build in Ship.2
Hrm. Well... I updated my G!G! to 653 and it *seems* to have worked... caveat being that i have not done detailed testing... just use testing... JK On Dec 26, 2007 1:46 PM, C. Scott Ananian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Dec 26, 2007 12:27 PM, ffm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: According to the download page for ship.2, 653 is the latest signed stable, but according to OS images the latest image is 650. Since many issues that were in 650 have been fixed in 653, and 653 seems to run w/o issues, why the two different sources? Since 653 is signed and (iirc) fixed WPA issues, should we not tell users to update to 653 to fix their issues? 653 was a stop-gap release and has been tested only as a clean install. Upgrading from 650 to 653 has not been tested, and so using olpc-update to get from 650 to 653 is not (yet?) recommended. That is the reason for the discrepancy: we can't yet recommend 653 as an update. Users who need WPA should do a clean install of 653, which will remove any content they had created in the Journal. At the moment, Update.1 will be the first recommended/tested *update* (as opposed to clean install), although it is possible we will release something-like-653 which we could feel comfortable recommending as an update. --scott -- ( http://cscott.net/ ) ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel -- ~~ Microsoft help desk says: reply hazy, ask again later. ~~ ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Latest stable build in Ship.2
On Dec 26, 2007 1:56 PM, ffm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Even though it is unsupported to use the olpc-update method, for some it might be more important to get wifi than stability. Should we put in the support FAQ that if one *absolutely* needs WPA that they could try olpc-update ing under the understanding that we will not support it if anything goes wrong? No, if you absolutely need WPA you should use the four-button upgrade method, which will wipe out your Journal. --scott -- ( http://cscott.net/ ) ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
