On Tue, 07 Jun 2011 09:44:40 -0700, Jameson Graef Rollins wrote:
> > Frankly, I wouldn't mind doing strict time-based releases with something
> > like the following:
>
> Hi, Carl. I think this is a fine idea, and we (not you) can definitely
> run this process. I'm quite sure that at least
On Tue, 07 Jun 2011 09:44:40 -0700, Jameson Graef Rollins
jroll...@finestructure.net wrote:
Frankly, I wouldn't mind doing strict time-based releases with something
like the following:
Hi, Carl. I think this is a fine idea, and we (not you) can definitely
run this process. I'm quite
On Tue, 07 Jun 2011 09:44:40 -0700, Jameson Graef Rollins wrote:
> I would love to hear any other ideas people have on this front.
I agree that delegation of bindings (and potentially the emacs code) is
a good thing. I believe both areas are separate enough to be
delegated. Perhaps have a
On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 15:56:42 -0700, Carl Worth wrote:
> Frankly, I wouldn't mind doing strict time-based releases with something
> like the following:
Hi, Carl. I think this is a fine idea, and we (not you) can definitely
run this process. I'm quite sure that at least bremner and I can
On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 15:56:42 -0700, Carl Worth cwo...@cworth.org wrote:
Frankly, I wouldn't mind doing strict time-based releases with something
like the following:
Hi, Carl. I think this is a fine idea, and we (not you) can definitely
run this process. I'm quite sure that at least bremner
On Tue, 07 Jun 2011 09:44:40 -0700, Jameson Graef Rollins wrote:
I would love to hear any other ideas people have on this front.
I agree that delegation of bindings (and potentially the emacs code) is
a good thing. I believe both areas are separate enough to be
delegated. Perhaps have a similar
Hi,
On Sat, 04 Jun 2011 10:21:00 -0300, David Bremner wrote:
> Overall I think Carl's time based release proposal is a reasonable
> plan. I think one problem we've been having is that we seem to have lost
> track of
>
> # Releases of notmuch have a two-digit version (0.1, 0.2, etc.). We
>
Hi Carl,
On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 15:56:42 -0700, Carl Worth wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 14:39:13 -0700, Jameson Graef Rollins finestructure.net> wrote:
> > Can we set a target date for 0.6 release? So we'll all start feeling
> > really bad if we miss it?
>
> Frankly, I wouldn't mind doing strict
On Sat, 04 Jun 2011 16:27:33 +0200, Xavier Maillard
wrote:
> I know it is a bit off topic here but just a question: how will you deal
> with dependencies ? I mean, when we need GMime vX.Y.Z and Debian has
> already vX.V.W ?
The same as every other Debian package? Try to persuade the maintainer
Overall I think Carl's time based release proposal is a reasonable
plan. I think one problem we've been having is that we seem to have lost
track of
# Releases of notmuch have a two-digit version (0.1, 0.2, etc.). We
# increment the second digit for each release and increment the first
Hi Carl,
On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 15:56:42 -0700, Carl Worth cwo...@cworth.org wrote:
On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 14:39:13 -0700, Jameson Graef Rollins
jroll...@finestructure.net wrote:
Can we set a target date for 0.6 release? So we'll all start feeling
really bad if we miss it?
Frankly, I
Hi,
On Sat, 04 Jun 2011 10:21:00 -0300, David Bremner brem...@unb.ca wrote:
Overall I think Carl's time based release proposal is a reasonable
plan. I think one problem we've been having is that we seem to have lost
track of
# Releases of notmuch have a two-digit version (0.1, 0.2,
On Sat, 04 Jun 2011 16:27:33 +0200, Xavier Maillard xav...@maillard.im wrote:
I know it is a bit off topic here but just a question: how will you deal
with dependencies ? I mean, when we need GMime vX.Y.Z and Debian has
already vX.V.W ?
The same as every other Debian package? Try to persuade
On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 14:39:13 -0700, Jameson Graef Rollins wrote:
> Can we set a target date for 0.6 release? So we'll all start feeling
> really bad if we miss it?
Frankly, I wouldn't mind doing strict time-based releases with something
like the following:
* We schedule a release
14 matches
Mail list logo
