Re: what's next?

On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 01:15:59PM +0100, Stéphane Glondu wrote: > Please have a look and tell me if there is something wrong. Wonderful!, thanks. Right now I'm offline and can't check by myself, in the meantime can you start checking whether the dep-wait we missed for the last transition are actu

Re: what's next? and OCaml documentation

On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 10:54:13AM +0100, Ralf Treinen wrote: > This is version 0.8.10 of February 22 of the doc-base policy. The above > paragraph seems to be recent, the doc-base changelog entry of doc-base > 0.8.10 says: > > * doc-base.sgml: > + define real section hierarchy (closes: #1

Re: what's next?

Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit : > [...] Settled them we can then prod the release managers asking them > whether it would be fine or not to go ahead with another binNMU-based > transition for OCaml 3.10.2, I frankly hope so. I've updated the binNMU-generation script with all the suggestions I've gath

Re: what's next? and OCaml documentation

Le Saturday 22 March 2008 10:54:13 Ralf Treinen, vous avez écrit : > So, shouldn't we go for it now and inroduce the "Programming/OCaml" > section in doc-base that we have been waiting for ? ACK, we have the issue with ocaml-mad.. Romain -- We sick an' tired of-a your ism-skism game - Dyin' 'n'

Re: what's next? and OCaml documentation

On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 12:27:49PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 10:36:25AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > > Yay! \o/ > > The transition brings us to the obvious question of: what's next? > > I guess we have all pet bugs in OCaml-r

what's next?

On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 10:36:25AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > Yay! \o/ The transition brings us to the obvious question of: what's next? I guess we have all pet bugs in OCaml-related packages which were waiting to be fixed for the transition to happen. My proposal is hence to g