On Thu, Jul 19, 2001 at 08:41:05AM -0400, Dan Espen wrote:
Olivier Chapuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Jul 15, 2001 at 02:38:56PM +0200, Dominik Vogt wrote:
On Tue, Jul 10, 2001 at 12:24:06AM +, Mikhael Goikhman wrote:
On 09 Jul 2001 10:37:58 +0200, Dominik Vogt wrote:
On 19 Jul 2001 08:41:05 -0400, Dan Espen wrote:
Olivier Chapuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But we want also to add new features to 2.4.x: at least Xinerama
support and maybe fvwm-ewmh merging. I think, as Dan suggest in an
other thread, that we should open a new branch for these. Here
On Sat, Jul 21, 2001 at 07:24:27PM +, Mikhael Goikhman wrote:
On 19 Jul 2001 08:41:05 -0400, Dan Espen wrote:
Olivier Chapuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But we want also to add new features to 2.4.x: at least Xinerama
support and maybe fvwm-ewmh merging. I think, as Dan suggest
Mikhael Goikhman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 19 Jul 2001 08:41:05 -0400, Dan Espen wrote:
I don't think numbering the branch 2.5 is a good, mainly because I don't
think we should start a 2.5 series that will take 2 years to release.
If we name the branches instead of numbering them,
Olivier Chapuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Jul 15, 2001 at 02:38:56PM +0200, Dominik Vogt wrote:
On Tue, Jul 10, 2001 at 12:24:06AM +, Mikhael Goikhman wrote:
On 09 Jul 2001 10:37:58 +0200, Dominik Vogt wrote:
* changed version from 2.4.0.1 to 2.4.1
I wonder how
On Sun, Jul 15, 2001 at 02:38:56PM +0200, Dominik Vogt wrote:
On Tue, Jul 10, 2001 at 12:24:06AM +, Mikhael Goikhman wrote:
On 09 Jul 2001 10:37:58 +0200, Dominik Vogt wrote:
* changed version from 2.4.0.1 to 2.4.1
I wonder how we should number our releases at the moment. We
On Tue, Jul 10, 2001 at 12:24:06AM +, Mikhael Goikhman wrote:
On 09 Jul 2001 10:37:58 +0200, Dominik Vogt wrote:
* changed version from 2.4.0.1 to 2.4.1
I wonder how we should number our releases at the moment. We need
some way to have betas with a leading 2.4... since we can't
On 09 Jul 2001 10:37:58 +0200, Dominik Vogt wrote:
* changed version from 2.4.0.1 to 2.4.1
I wonder how we should number our releases at the moment. We need
some way to have betas with a leading 2.4... since we can't expect
to make a Xinerama release without any betas in between.
Well,
