Am 10.06.2009 um 05:14 schrieb Gregory Hellings:
On Jun 9, 2009, at 22:51, Dmitrijs Ledkovs
dmitrij.led...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/6/10 Greg Hellings greg.helli...@gmail.com:
I know the question has been raised before about separating
utilities
from the library but nothing has ever
Troy A. Griffitts wrote:
1.6.x has been dubbed a non-API-breaking/binary-compat stable branch. If
you want to call that a bug-fix branch, great. We are in a phase of
development currently which doesn't require a branch. We are fixing
bugs, optimizing, and improving filter support, etc.
2009/6/10 Jonathan Marsden jmars...@fastmail.fm:
At the level of utilities that are used in scripts, and whose command
line parameters are therefore in some sense an API for those who write
scripts using them, the very recent (post 1.6.0) change to osis2mod that
adds the -d option *already*
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 8:59 PM, Jonathan Marsdenjmars...@fastmail.fm wrote:
Troy A. Griffitts wrote:
1.6.x has been dubbed a non-API-breaking/binary-compat stable branch. If
you want to call that a bug-fix branch, great. We are in a phase of
development currently which doesn't require a
2009/6/10 Greg Hellings greg.helli...@gmail.com:
I know the question has been raised before about separating utilities
from the library but nothing has ever shaken out of it. To me, this
again makes sense in this category. If the utilities were placed into
their own SVN repository they
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 1:51 PM, Dmitrijs Ledkovs
dmitrij.led...@gmail.comwrote:
Keep the same svn. With a little bit of auto-foo magic you can
generate two different tarballs and release either of them at their
respective schedules.
IMHO this should be at least done for the bindings.
On Jun 9, 2009, at 22:51, Dmitrijs Ledkovs dmitrij.led...@gmail.com
wrote:
2009/6/10 Greg Hellings greg.helli...@gmail.com:
I know the question has been raised before about separating utilities
from the library but nothing has ever shaken out of it. To me, this
again makes sense in
