The F9 build does boot into Sugar -- we aren't going to leave everyone
with a broken build for long. It has bugs, though. We need help fixing
the bugs more than we need a demand for constantly stable developer
builds and an unwarranted supposition of conflict.
Not long ago, when I tried to
Looks good to me. Thanks for writing it up.
Kim
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 1:12 PM, Chris Ball [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
At the IRC software meeting yesterday we discussed creating some new
build streams in preparation for our August 8.2 release. These
streams were proposed:
*
On Thursday 12 June 2008, Chris Ball wrote:
Hi,
At the IRC software meeting yesterday we discussed creating some new
build streams in preparation for our August 8.2 release. These
streams were proposed:
* Unstable/Joyride: This will move immediately (well, within a day or
two) to be a
On Thursday 12 June 2008, Chris Ball wrote:
Hi Dennis,
As i have said previously and repeatedly been ignored (like most of
what i say). this process will not work. period. It cant be made
to work in the same fashion as Debian because its not Debian.
everyone needs to quit
Hi Dennis,
from your initial email: Stable: Stable builds are specified by
their release name (e.g. 8.1.1, 8.2), and the procedure for
packages moving from Testing into Stable releases involves the
Unscheduled Release Process:
I think I can see Dennis's confusion about packages moving from F9 to F7,
the initial writeup contains this:
* Stable: Stable builds are specified by their release name (e.g. 8.1.1,
8.2), and the procedure for packages moving from Testing into Stable
releases involves the Unscheduled Release
On Thursday 12 June 2008, Chris Ball wrote:
Hi Dennis,
from your initial email: Stable: Stable builds are specified by
their release name (e.g. 8.1.1, 8.2), and the procedure for
packages moving from Testing into Stable releases involves the
Unscheduled Release Process:
Is the piece we're missing the correlation with koji branches /
repository names? I've tried to encourage people to think of a more
clever naming scheme, but lacking that I suggest that we name our
branches according to our stable releases. For example:
olpc8.1 - repo for 8.1, 8.1.1, 8.1.2,
On Thursday 12 June 2008, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
Is the piece we're missing the correlation with koji branches /
repository names? I've tried to encourage people to think of a more
clever naming scheme, but lacking that I suggest that we name our
branches according to our stable releases.
2008/6/12 Dennis Gilmore [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Thursday 12 June 2008, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
Is the piece we're missing the correlation with koji branches /
repository names? I've tried to encourage people to think of a more
clever naming scheme, but lacking that I suggest that we name our
Hi,
Despite everybody denying this, it seems to me that the OLPC group
and the SugarLabs group are _NOT_ talking to each other.
Please don't litter the list with this kind of non-sequitur. The new
build streams discussion happened during our regular, public software
meeting (you're
11 matches
Mail list logo
